1920-06-24

PRIVATE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Steele, Bill No. 200 (from the Senate) for the relief of Muriel Curren Gilmour, was read the first and second time and referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. STEELE:: 1.	Who are the officers and directors of The Southam Press. Ltd.?
2.	What amount has been paid by the Government to this company each year for the last five years for printing?


Rt. Hon. A. L. SIFTON:: 1. Wm. Southam, Richard Southam, F. N. Southam, W. W. Southam, Adam L.
Lewis, W. J. Southam.
2. Department of Public Printing and
Stationery:		
	Montreal.	Toronto.
1916 .. ..	..$ 749 09	$ 3,410.491917 .. ..	.. 5,213 26	12,626 931918	.. 7,289 50	10,780 201919 .. ..	.. 1,839 95	8,602 991920 .. ..	.. 5,738 75	3,623 33$20,830 55	$39,043 94Department	of Soldiers'	Civil Re-establishment: 1	Year 1919-20,	$113.30.


FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION PAPERS.
Mr. CLEMENTS:: 1.	Is the Government aware of frauds being perpetrated in the past as well as the present in connection with naturalization papers issued in the past prior to the Act being amended requiring the photograph of the applicant?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to require all old naturalization papers on which photographs are omitted to be returned, and new naturalization papers issued with the original photographs attached? The above pertains especially to British Columbia.


Rt. Hon. A. L. SIFTON:: 
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	How many of the'tormer employees of the closed lobster hatcheries in the Maritime Provinces were employed by the Department of Naval Affairs during the open seasons of 1918 and 1919, respectively, collecting berried lobsters?
2.	If any such were employed, wliat were their names and post office addresses?
3.	How many bays or coves on the Atlantic coast have been set aside and maintained as lobseter breeding ground since 1917?
4.	If any such have been set aside what are the names?


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE:: 1 and 2. None.
3 and 4. None.


INSPECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Is there any vacancy in the position of Inspector of Weights and Measures on the north coast of the St. Lawrence?
2.	If so, have any applications been filed in relation thereto, and what are the names of the applicants?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	What is to be the total cost of the new Parliamentary restaurant when completed?
2.	What is the estimated cost of upkeep per year of said restaurant?
3.	What is the estimated cost of furnishing, including silverware and equipment, for said restaurant?
4.	What has been the cost of operating said restaurant in the present temporary quarters since the beginning of the present session?
5.	Does the item of $3,000 set forth in the Estimates for restaurant contingencies cover cost of operation for the current fiscal year, or is this intended to cover the year's deficit?
6.	Are persons employed in said restaurant directly in the emjploy of Parliament or the Government, and are they the persons referred to in the Civil Service classification as "waitresses"?
7.	If so, what is the total amount required to provide salaries for such persons during the current fiscal year?

PRIVILEGE-Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER.


APPOINTMENT OP TRUSTEES UNDER BANKRUPTCY ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER:: (St. Hyacinthe-
Rouville): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, and I will be as brief as possible in putting the facts before the House.
In the course of last week, having received a request from some of my constitu-ehts for information in respect to appointments of trustees under the Bankruptcy \ct, I went to my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). He informed me that he had been in charge of the Bill last session and of the amendments to the Act this session, hut that the matter rested with the Department of the Secretary of State, and that the Under-Secretary of State had the custody of the list of people who had made application to be appointed trustees under the Act, which list would be shown to me. This morning I went to the Under-Secretary of State. I do not want to Telate, nor do I want to characterize, the manner in which I was received. {Suffice it to say that I was unable to secure cognizance of that list, and I consider that my prerogative as a representative of the people was denied to me, and that my privilege as a member of this House was infringed upon by that official.
II would only add this: that civil servants should at least be civil in their dealings with the public.


Mr. ETHIER:: They are Americans now.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: During the nine years that I have been a member of this House I have had dealings with the officials of all the various departments, and they have always treated me with the greatest courtesy. This morning, through lack of courtesy on the part of an official of the department of the Secretary of State, I was denied information which I required on behalf of some of my constituents, and I am laying the facts before the House in order that my people may know the reason of my failure to get them the information they desired.
I will conclude by asking the Government two questions: (1) If a list has been prepared of the names of all persons who have made application to be appointed trustees under the Bankruptcy Act; if so, is it a secret document or a public document; and if it is a public document,, is it not right that hon. members should have access to it? (2) Does the Government intend in its appointment of trustees under the Bankruptcy Act to centralize those appointments in the hands of the great trust companies of Canada; or to appoint trustees in every electoral district for the benefit of creditors and debtors under the Act?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker, I should greatly regret if any officer of the Government was discourteous to my hon. friend or to any other member of the House. As to t'he character of the incident to which he has alluded, I have no personal knowledge. With respect to the list-there is no list at present, as I understand it, although it is true that a number of applications have been filed with the Under-Secretary of State. As to who will be appointed from that list, my hon. friend will realize that information could not be given in respect to'.that matter because it is a subject upon which advice will have to be tendered to His Excellency the Governor General. It is impossible, I understand, to take action until the Act comes into force. As soon as it does come into force action will be taken without any delay in order that there may be no public inconvenience. My hon. friend asked about centralization. I do not think that the question of personnel has been formally considered, but my hon. friend may be assured that in framing the list every possible consideration will be given to having such number of persons appointed as will obviate any possible inconvenience, and that no attempt will be made at centralization.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Is it the intention of the Government, instead of carrying out the policy of centralization mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Gauthier), to appoint trustees in each of the different judicial districts throughout the provinces? May I ask further whether the name of Vincent Lamarre, accountant, of Montreal, is among the applicants for the district of Terrebonne?


Robert Laird Borden: I really could not give my hon. friend any information as to who is ,or is not an applicant. So far as his inquiry relates to appointments in different judicial districts, I could say nothing without consultation with those of my colleagues who have more particularly given their attention to the matter. But the suggestion which I understand my hon. friend to. make in that regard will be noted by the ministers and will be most carefully considered when we come to make the appointments.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
, Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into 'committee to consider a proposed resolution respecting the Canadian Wheat Board. He said:
Before we go into .committee., Mr. Speaker, on this resolution, it may facilitate nrat-ters if I explain what is proposed and why. I may say in the first place that this resolution is not -meant as the substratum of a Bill which, when passed and assented to, is to go into force at once and establish a board for the ensuing year. The measure is simply to be an enabling one, to provide that if during the progress of the season it becomes necessary that the measure be brought into effect, that may be done by proclamation of the 'Governor in Council. So that the Bill differs from one which is to come into force immediately. It may not go into force at all; I hope it will not he necessary to put it into force, and in that respect I think I express the general opinion of the Government. That much, then, to take away from the misapprehension which may naturally have arisen because of the fact that in the resolution itself the statement is not made that the legislation is to go into effect only upon proclamation of the Governor in Council.
The reason for this legislation arises out of the condition of the wheat markets not only in Canada but in Europe and in the United States. Last year, as the House knows, the Canada Wheat Board was formed because conditions then existing made it necessary, as subsequent events abundantly proved, that .there should be an agency for the marketing of wheat and its products in Canada,-an agency which should be able to take up with other [DOT]agencies ini Europe and in the United States the work of purchasing and selling. In Europe the buying last year was done entirely by the Governments. Normal methods of buying did not prevail. The agencies, the credits, the transport facilities which are essential to the transfer of the wheat from producer to ultimate consumer, were not available. Last year concentrated Government buying was the rule, and as there was but one purchaser it became necessary that there should be one seller to meet that purchaser and transact the business with a fair chance of its successful despatch. France, Great Britain and Italy particularly were closely united jn their purchases. In the main, one purchaser purchased for all, so that there was not

even competition between the three great Government buyers. I shall not give the reasons why this policy was determined upon and carried out by the Government. I think they have been canvassed for the few months that the season has now progressed, and that members of the House as well as business men outside are quite well aware erf the reasons that influenced the Government. One very strong factor in the case, and one which must be borne in mind in connection with the marketing of Canada's grain, is that we have not uninterrupted- access by water to the seaboard1 for all seasons and all months' of the year; that it is essential that as large a proportion as possible of the wheat produced in the West ehall find its way to the Great Lakes, at least before the termination of the season of lake and river navigation, and that as much of that as possible shall be passed on towards the seaboard, and, if possible, across the water into the hands of the consumer. When that period of the year is reached which closes river and lake navigation, the wheat has to be mainly kept in store in the West, of course, under all the charges of interest and carrying chargee generally which have to accrue for four or five or eix or even seven months. That has its influence upon price, and upon the amount which will ultimately be received by the producer of the grain.
Last year, at that particular period of the year, we were faced with this, that there was in the European market no buyer who was prepared1 to- say what he would! buy, when he would buy, or what price he would give. When that situation confronted us, we were met by this, that as there was no buyer in a position to buy, no grain could -be sold, and consequently it had to remain in the hands of t-he farmer or stored by him by his immediate successor who might become possessor of a certain portion of the farmer's grain. Finances, therefore, had to be aranged1 for, so- that the farmer's grain, in default of the possible buyer in the market from the European country, might yet find a purchaser, and that the farmer himself might get at least a fair proportion of the ultimate price that would accrue to him. Therefore, the policy that was adopted worked out in this way, that the Wheat Board was appointed to become the purchaser and seller of wheat and wheat products. That is, the board received the grain from farmers whenever it was deliverable, and an advance payment of what might be the ultimate price was arranged to be paid by the banks on the security of

the Government, so that there was no stoppage of the flow, there was no interregnum, so to speak, in the gradual and ready passage of the wheat from the farmer's possession to head oI the lakes or the seaboard. The farmer disposed of his grain; the Canada Wheat Board bought it; a payment of $2.15 per bushel based on No. 1 Northern at Fort William was paid to the farmer, and therefore, the market proceeded readily, steadily and uniformly. The Canada Wheat Board thus stood to purchase and market the wheat for the whole crop season, and after expenses of administration were borne, what remained of the ultimate price received, having gone into the fund in the meantime, was afterwards distributed pro rata amongst the original producers of the gr§,in. A participation ticket or certificate was arranged for, and when the farmer made his delivery of the grain and received the cash price that was paid as an advance payment, he received also a participation ticket entitling him to his proportion of the ultimate surplus over and above the advance payment. That explains the mechanism of the work carried on by the Canada Wheat Board. It has been functioning from that time to the present, and while I am not prepared to say exactly what proportion of the wheat has already been sold, I think, with the general information at hand, I can say that a very large proportion of the wheat product of last season has already been disposed of in the form of wheat or flour; that the proceeds have come into the" general fund; that out of those proceeds, the first advance to the farmer has been recouped to the banks, and that the surplus accumulating in the banks will ultimately be distributable some time between now- and the end of the season. I think the participators have a right, under the time limit that was set, to have their participation tickets in. by the month of December. As soon -as that period comes then the total distribution will be made and the farmer will know exactly what he has received for his grain. I think it is possible that, between this time and that, if we consider what has already been sold and what has been received therefor, a dividend, so to speak, or a portion of that surplus may be placed at the disposal of the holders of the participation tickets. Therefore, a part of the pool or surplus may be distributed amongst them within the next month or so.
It might not be uninteresting to the House to have these facts placed before them. On 261
the inception of this plan of purchase and distribution, the participation ticket was not thought very highly of by the opponents of the scheme, and I think many assertions were made, some of them in this House and more of them outside, which led to the impression: "Participation ticket! It is not worth that! It is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. You have all you will get when you have the initial primary payment. The rest, well, it is in the Government's hands, and they will make mighty certain that it does not get into your hands." That had its influence and it has had its reflex as well. That impression was spread abroad and men acted upon it, with the result that thousands-I am not prepared to say how many thousands-of these participation tickets were disposed of by their owners who were misled by statements as to their utter worthlessness. Men were quite willing to buy them for five cents and upwards. Some of these tickets have even been given away in the access of a generous impulse which Was founded upon the depreciatory statements that were made. The fortunate or unfortunate holder would say in some cases:	"You can have my
tickets; they are no good to me." It has been stated by the chairman of the board that the farmer may be certain of receiving at least forty cents a bushel from that surplus fund. I think that is probably not an over-estimate, but, if anything, an under-estimate. So the men who have been robbed of these participation tickets under the impression that they were no good, will wake up to find that if they had kept them, instead of getting five or ten cents they would have got at least forty cents for them, which would have been a very respectable addition to the price per bushel to the farmer. It is interesting to know that the project, and the established agency for carrying it out, has worked successfully at least in that respect, and that the farmer will get a very respectable addition to the primary payment made when the pool is finally distributed. I thought it well to make these remarks because it gives the House an idea of what was done, and is a foundation for our deliberations as to what action we shall take for the future in connection with this resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it.
What are the circumstances and conditions that differentiate the position this year from the position last year? In some respects there is a marked difference; in
[Stage Direction]


other respects, there is not very much difference from last year. So far as we can tell now, France and Britain and Italy have not de-controlled the wheat and flour trade. The 'Governments still have the buying under their control. As to whether these countries will buy through one agency or each buy separately, it can easily be seen that if it is to the advantage of the three Powers to. buy through one agency instead of having three competitors in the world's market for the wheat and the flour they want, if it seems economical and beneficial to them to do that, they will do it this year the same as they did last year. As far as these three countries are concerned, and they are the three principal ones, we have at the present time government combination and government control in buying of wheat for their future needs. As to the neutral countries some of them have government control, practically all of them, I believe. The position is not very much different with them. If certain circumstances arise, they may also pool their buying agencies with a view to economy and so as not to compete with each other. No matter what may be said or argued, Europe is the great recipient for the surplus wheat and wheat products of Canada. It is to that market we have looked to dispose of our surplus, and it is to that market we must look this year most certainly, because the conditions point to that as inevitable. Australia this year will have no surplus to market. The probabilities are that she wild have to buy for the consumptive needs of her people. As far as the European countries are concerned, from what knowledge one can get from the very confused information coming to us from those countries, the general idea may be said to foe that there will be a deficit of crops for the sustenance of the peoples of Europe, owing either to lack of production, or to the almost absolute confusion of transport which exists. Such confusion exists in Russia, for example, and it will be impossible to relieve the transport situation there not only for this season but probably for many seasons to come. So that even if there are wheat supplies here and there in the widely distributed region of Russia, the question of transport, outside of all other considerations, makes it very difficult for that wheat to contribute in any substantial way to meeting the food scarcity in other parts of Europe. Another thing that confronts European countries is lack of money and lack of credit. If those 
countries have to go into the world market, as they will, for supplies, they are limited to a large extent by their lack of ready money and lack of credit, and they can satisfy their desires to anything more than a limited, extent only by getting credits from certain countries. If they can get those credits, for instance, from the United States of America, one of the conditions that would certainly be imposed by the United States would be that the country to whom she extends credit should buy wheat and wheat products from the United States and not from any other country. That is briefly the position on the European side. It is possible that during the coming crop season we may be faced by a condition in Europe just as urgent and just as necessitous as was the condition last year, and if our policy was right based on such conditions last year, then to meet the same * conditions this year some such policy would be necessary to win out.
In the United States there has been a change. Wheat control has been given up. The' trade has been de-controlled. The United States is unhampered at the present time, so far as control is concerned. The United States is taking measures to have its exchanges opened. At what time, and on what conditions, they have not yet decided, but the supposition at the present time is that they may be opened for trading anywhere after the 15th of July, but for trading in December options only. Members of the House will know what that means in relation to trading in Canada. In the United States, however, there is a power which if it becomes necessary can bring back control at any time the United States Government desires to do so. While it is not, I hope, a certainty and not, I would think, a probability, it is still possible that if matters take a certain turn control would be again established in the United States. Taking these two things into account the Government has come to the conclusion that it is wise that we should have power granted to us by this Parliament, so that if conditions do so converge as to make the necessity of last year a necessity again this year we shall not be without authority to cope with the situation and be able to protect the Canadian interests as we protected them last year.
This Bill will not go into operation when it has passed through this House and has been assented to. It will be a reserve power in the hands of the Government to be put into operation, if it becomes necessary to do so under circumstances which

may assume the proportions and the aspect which I have just briefly stated to the House. Therefore, I think, speaking from the general principle, that the House, seized of the reasons which influenced the Government to take that precautionary step and to ask Parliament to put that power into our hands, will realize the wisdom of what has been done. The resolution that has been placed before the House is founded on exactly the powers that were given to the Canadian Wheat Board. Now, I am ready to admit that even if all the circumstances to which I have alluded should occur, we are in a somewhat different condition from that which confronted us last year, and possibly some of the very stringent and comprehensive powers that were granted to the Wheat Board last year may not be absolutely necessary this year. As we go on through the different clauses of the resolution I will point out some in which I think a lightening up could be had, which would not at all- militate against the effectiveness of the board but would act less restrictively upon the other agencies and businesses in connection with the marketing of wheat and grains, which necessarily have been under certain restrictions during the past season.
*Mr. MACKENZIE. KING: May I ask the minister whether any report has been submitted to the Government by the Canada Wheat Board? '
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: No. The board has not submitted any report to the Government. I may state my own policy and the policy of the Government with reference to the board, because it may answer some questions that would otherwise be asked. When we came to the conclusion to establish a board and place m its hands the marketing' of wheat, and placed upon that board capable men representing all the interests involved, men of practical experience as well as acknowledge ability, my view, which was the view of the Government, was that if we placed these interests in the hands of a competent and responsible body of men, those men must be left to conduct their operations according to their own best judgment and in keeping with the powers that had been granted to them. And I, as the minister to whom they are to a *certain extent responsible so far as affiliation with the Government is concerned, have never sought to impose upon them my oivn views in any degree whatsoever, much less to dictate to the board how they 2614
should carry on their business or to suggest what they should do in this or the other circumstance. 1 think I shall have the assent of the House to the proposition that either the Government should do the work or that it should be done by the body which they had appointed and which was composed of capable and responsible men. If there had been a continual communication between that board and individual members of the Government and the Government itself, if there had been an incessant series of appeals and protests, the work of the board would have been impossible. And I may state my own conviction that under a state .of things like that no thoroughly responsible men would have undertaken the work or, had they done so, would have carried it out for any length of time. I think therefore that it is just as well to state what has been the position of the Government. 'Members of Parliament have come to me, while others have written; and altogether there has been an overwhelming volume of correspondence. But I have never deemed it my duty to do more than put these representations before the Canada Wheat Board and ask them to give the matters submitted their consideration. Further than that I have refrained from going; I have not interfered with their .operations. My hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) asks if there has been a report. There has not been any report. There seems to be no reason why there should be a report from time to time unless the Government undertook to regulate, to fashion, and to direct the work of the board consequent upon reports that they might receive from them. But - as I have just stated, that was not a part of the Government's business. The board are managing the work. They have their powers, and when they -get through with their business they will make their complete report. Their financial transactions will be thoroughly abdited, first, by their own auditor, and afterwards by the auditor appointed by the Government, who is at present at work in his preliminary audit of the operations of the board. Neither am I quite able to say-and there are reasons why-just what quantities of wheat and flour have been marketed by this board. Why? Because, the moment you make that information public, the public then knows pretty well, or at least it makes a shrewd guess, as to what is the remaining portion of the grain; and it is quite easy to hamper the residue of the board's transactions by a publicity which would to a certain extent

give their position away to the public. For this reason I have not insisted on any report of quantities sold, but I have the general impression, which I stated to. the House a moment ago, that a very large proportion of the product has been sold, only a comparatively small proportion remaining.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE BING (leader of the Opposition):: late this year or early next year, then under this measure as drafted the powers of this Wheat Board would end at once, and the situation might become somewhat embarrassing to parties that had had- dealings with the hoard and were looking to it for tlie -consummation of transactions entered into.
These are suggestions that I think are worth while bringing to the attention of the Government, and I hope that they will be taken account of when the minister speaks further on the measure.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate that at this late day of the session hon. members aTe not anxious to listen to any more -speeches than are absolutely necessary. However, at the risk of incurring their displeasure I feel it my duty to express once again my opinion on this question. I have placed myself on record at least on two previous occasions with regard to the question generally. What I desire to do this afternoon is, first of all, to enter a most emphatic protest against this House -confirming the general principle involved in this measure, and also involved in another -measure before the House, Bill No. 182. The two Bills are -almost similar so far as principle i-s concerned.
It will not be possible for me this afternoon to go into this matter at any great length, but I wish again to state that the principle of these two Bills d-s the principle of paternalism,- I will go further -and say that it approaches the principle of the socialization of industrial control;, it is the initial step towards that end. In making that assertion I am not stating that the Government are so declaring, but I do -say that the -acceptance of these two measures, and particularly of the one immediately under consideration, will open the way for the introduction at some future time of more radical and more extreme measures.
The right -hon. gentleman who has introduced the measure -says that thi-s is simply an enabling Bill. I desire to briefly call the attention of the House to this phase of the subject. If this is simply a measure to enable the Government to face some possible and remote contingency-and, mark you, Mr. Speaker, they so assert-why not take -some simple power by -amendment to the Grain Act-a Bill to amend which Act is now before the House-clothing the Government with power to deal with an emergency? I submit that in the Grain Act in its revised form we have a -statute whi-ch
t'Mr. Mackenzie King.]
deals with almost every phase of the grain business of Canada, with the exception of the marketing of grain, and I submit therefore that that Act -should have been u-sed as a medium for the purpose sought to be accomplished by this measure, and not by the introduction of la measure -enunciating, as I submit, an entirely -new principle in dealing with the commerce and industry of the country.
If the object of this Bill is to achieve decontrol, why is not the Bill so framed, why is it not a de-control measure? On the contrary, this is a positive measure, it is a measure of control. It is not a measure which -assists this country in shaking off the shackles of war-time control, but introduces under peace conditions .a new and positive principle of control. -I refer to clause 13 of the Bill, which reads:
That there shall not be provided on any grain exchange or elsewhere facilities for trading in wheat futures during the time the Act based upon these resolutions is in force, except bypermission in writing of the Board.
In other words, instead of being a measure of de-cont-rol, it retains control as at the present time.
Now, I wish to make another point-. The right hon. minister re-fered to government buying overseas, and this is the basis upon which the -Government appealed to the House for support of this -measure. In bread and general terms it is asserted that there is government buying in Europe; therefore it is necessary to have government selling in Canada. I read a statement by the Hon. Mr. -Langley of Saskatchewan-who, I understand, heartily supports this measure- and he uses those exact terms. He says that so long as there is government buying there must be government selling. Let us consider that for a moment. During the war period which made necessary the appointment of the Grain, -Supervisor, and later of the Wheat Board, Great Britain bought virtually for the whole of Europe, for neutral as well as Allied countries. What is the condition to-day? All the neutral countries are buying for themselves, all the Allied countries are buying for themselves. Not only is that the case, hut in many of the neutral countries private buyers are buying for the wheat needs of their own people under normal and ordinary conditions. And in all those countries, Allied and neutral, including Great Britain, de-control has -been brought about to almost vanishing point. In Great Britain the only control is that a permit must be obtained from the department having control for all purchases made.

Private buyers from Great Britain, from Sweden, and from other countries, are in Canada to-day seeking to negotiate for the 1920 crop. As I say, in Great Britain all they have to do is to secure a permit. Indeed, the minister in charge there-whose name for the/ moment escapes my memory- said only about a month ago that in his opinion complete de-control would have to be brought aJbout in the near future.
Let us look at the matter from another point in connection with the European buyers. The right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago drew a rather blue picture of the world condition for w7heat. He said there were indications that there would be an undoubted scarcity and a strong demand for Canadian wheat. He / has argued that there is a danger of a combination of European buyers being formed against 'Canadian sellers, and the impossibility of private marketing in Canada to cope with such a combination. Is not that, Sir, an. utterly illogical position? The very assertion of the minister that there is a scarcity of wheat in the world is almost a guarantee that the European market will have to buy our wheat. But, Sir, that is not the only flaw in that phase of the argument. There is this further point, that Canada is practically the only country to-day-the Russian wheat market being virtually ' closed-which can supply the European market with the hard wheat which they must have to mix with their soft wheat, and there is every indication that Canadian/ hard wheat will be in very strong demand during this fall; indeed, there is very little evidence that there will be any difficulty in the marketing of Canadian wheat through ordinary channels.
But I beg to submit another point in regard to that phase of the matter which I believe will appeal to the House. I have to repeat my argument for the purpose of making this other point. It is stated that there may be a combination against Canada; therefore we would have to have the Wheat Board control the market. Supposing this European combination were brought about-mark you, it is almost unbelievable that such a thing could be-but grant the extreme, that it would be brought /about, could not they desist from buying from the Canadian Wheat Board just as easily as from private sellers?	i
It would not be a combination against any one firm; it would be a combination against the Canadian Wheat Board, according to
the argument advanced. Now, Sir, suppose such a condition did obtain, the only thing that could be done would be this: the Canadian -Government, through the State Department, would make representations to these Governments protesting against such a combination. That is all they could do, but it would be their duty to do just as much for the Canadian private seller -as for this Canadian Wheat Board. The function of the Wheat Board is not to make 'State representations against any such a combination; it is to market the wheat.
There is another point, however, that is important in connection with this matter; the minister has mentioned it. He says that it may be necessary to raise some credits for European powers. That has nothing to do with the -marketing of wheat on this side; that is not related to the functions of the Wheat iBo-ard-a board which we are clothing with powers beyond anything ever given to a board before, as I shall show. That is a question of finance, a question which we dealt with through special measures last session. It is a question for the Minister of Finance and the Government with regard to advancing credit; it has no relation to this question of the socialized marketing of wheat in Canada.
It is argued that the United States market may be controlled. Again il submit to the minister that he is raising up a straw man to knock him down. The United States have abandoned control. The President has issued his proclamation to that end. Mr. Barnes, head of the wheat movement in the United States since the control was inaugurated, has severed his connection with those activities, and is -again doing business -as -a private operator. In other words, complete decontrol has been brought -about in the United States.
My right hon. friend argues, and others who follow me may argue, that possibly under -the Lever Act-which would be moribund had the United States not failed to ratify the Peace Treaty-the Attorney General of the -United 'States may at any time revive control or interfere w-ith the private marketing of wheat. Technically that is true. What is the argument based upon that circumstance? It is that Canadians would be prevented from hedging their purchases 'and their sales on the American market. But I am informed upon the highest authority that as a matter of practice Canadian dealers do not hedge on the American market. I will give one or two facts to dissipate any idea of that kind. Up to a few months ago the United -States either

had a duty of several cents a bushel upon our wheat, or an absolute embargo .against it. How could you hedge on the American market with a duty of several cents a bushel against you? It is not done; it has not been done as a matter of practice; therefore it has no material effect upon the marketing of Canadian wheat. The argument, therefore, is not tenable; it is not a reasonable argument in support of this measure.
The Canada Wheat Board as it has existed during the past year has made no report to the Government or to this House. Therein lies the seriousness of this whole business; therein lies the most objectionable feature of it. The Canada Wheat Board has the unlimited credit of the Government of Canada. It has authority to borrow money from the banks and has the backing of the Government for its overdrafts and its notes. What does that mean? It means that with a normal crop on the prairies this year, leaving out of consideration the other parts of Canada, the business Of .an industry involving $500,000,000 will be handled by three men, with the unlimited credit of Canada behind them. I have little fear that these men will mishandle the business or make any serious loss, provided they handle it, as they did last year, on a constantly rising market. But suppose there should come about a sudden release of wheat from Bussia. Suppose India had a large crop, and suppose during the next year there should come a slump in the wheat market; for there are just as many authorities predicting a lower wheat market as there are predicting a higher one. The thing is in the lap of the gods; nobody knows what will happen. Well, if it does happen that there is a falling market, we will have three men, clothed with absolute authority and power to incur unlimited expense, and backed up by the unlimited credit of Canada-three men dealing with a $500,000,000 proposition. I am not prepared as a member of this House to support any policy in time of peace which will subject the country to such a- risk as that. I am not prepared to place in the hands of three men a power that has never "been placed in the hands even of His Majesty's Executive Council in this country. They have submitted to no supervision or audit; they have had no inspection; they have made no report; they have assumed no responsibility to the country up to this time except a personal responsibility. I do believe that these men will make a report which, having regard to the rising market, will at least show no discre-

pancies. But is the House going to adopt this new policy of industrialism, a new policy of nationalization of industries, which may later be extended to other lines?
It has been claimed that this policy is in the interests of the farmers; that it is necessary to do this in order to get for the farmer the highest possible amount for his wheat. I have no objection to the farmer getting all he can for his wheat. I do not believe in the fixation of prices; I believe that the farmer is entitled to get for his wheat all that the world market will give him for it. But I do not believe that it is the duty of this Parliament to surround the industry of farming with so many safeguards that there shall be no possibility of risk. It is my view that the consumers of this country have some right to be considered; that we have a duty to the consumers just as we have a duty to the farmers. I do not say that by way of disparagement of the farmers; I repeat that they are entitled to all that the world market will give them. But I will not for a moment support, nor have I ever done so, any fixing of prices in wheat in order to keep them down on behalf of the consumer. On the other hand, I am not prepared to subscribe to any doctrine based, as this is in part, upon the claim that it is designed for the purpose of getting a larger price for the farmer.
Now, I wish to direct the attention of the House-and I will hasten-to some of the objectionable features of this Bill and to some of the clauses which furnish me with reasons for my objection to it.
*Clause 2 of the resolution provides that the Governor in Council may appoint a board consisting of not more than twelve members, and clause 12 provides that the board may appoint an executive committee of not less than three of its members, and may assign to such executive committee any duties or powers within the competence of the board. This is unlimited, unrestricted and absolute. In other words, it constitutes a board! of three members. Clause 4 gives the board certain duties of making inquiries and investigations to ascertain the condition of wheat throughout the country and so forth. All of these powers, with the exception of those- referring to marketing, are a duplication of the powers of the present Grain Commission created under the Canada Crain Act. By this legislation we are brushing aside the Crain Commission and superseding it with a new authority. It is true this power has been in operation during the past year under an Order in Council passed under the War Measures

Act, but I do not consider that it is a peace proposal. We are non dealing with a new proposal.
Under paragraph (b) of clause 5, the board shall have power to fix the price of wheat, and this is one of the main features of the- legislation to which I object. It has also all power in regard! to participation certificates, to say what amount they shall he, how they shall be distributed; in fact, the 'board has unlimited and unreserved powers in stating what -these participation certificates shall be. In regard to this, I should like to state a principle which, I think, merits respect. I admit that you can argue these things away; that as a Parliament we have power to brush them aside; but there is a great danger in Parliament departing from well recognized principles, unless, indeed, we come to this House and say that it is our intention to depart from- those principles- and to introduce new principles. Supposing the Board buys a bushel of wheat from A at a fixed price of $2 a bushel. Wheat goes up and reaches, let us say, $3 a bushel, and B holds his wheat over that period, figuring that the market will rise, and he sells- it two months later when the market price is $3. The Wheat Board buys it at $3 as it has already bought A's wheat at $2. I submit that there is a grave constitutional -question whether or not the Wheat Board or the Canadian Parliament has a right to take from B a portion of his money and give it to A so as to equalize their prices at $2.50 a bushel. That is a point in dispute and it is the very point which will shortly be coming before the Privy .-Council in regard to the Board of Commerce, whether or not that board has a right to step in and fix a price. Whether or not this Parliament has that power, it is a distinct violation of well recognized principles of doing business in this or any other democratic -country. What are you doing in regard to this -matter of participation certificates? You are acknowledging the Karl Marxian principle of equalizing and levelling everything. You are not giving to a man the liberty of selling his product and getting the best price he can with his- intelligence and ability to market. You are depriving him of that. It does not matter if the market went to $5 a bushel, B is taxed a certain- portion of his price, and it is given to A who sells early in the fall. You may reverse the argument. Wheat may be at a given figure when A sells and at a lower figure when B sells. In that event you take -from A and give to B. The principle that we are proposing
to pass into law is a vicious principle and one that I am not at the present time prepared to subscribe to. I -quite recognize that that -my very learned and exceedingly clever friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) may later on reply to all this and brush it aside, and with his inimitable skill argue the -House out of any respect for my weak argument. But I have sufficient confidence in the old-established principles of economy, at least, to stubbornly- stand by those principles myself.
Under paragraph (c) of clause 5 the board may sell to the millers at a fixed price as it sees- fit. The bo-ard has thus unlimited and unqualified powers to fix the price to the millers. Some may say: "That is all right;" but I am opposed to any governmental machinery being set up under conditions of -peace to fix the price of any commodity in -Canada. We -must first carefully discuss in this Parliament whether or not we are willing to depart from well recognized principles which have governed trade in the past.
Under paragraph (g) of clause 5 the board may fix the margins of profit of -millers and the standards of flour. If you please, this board is to be clothed with the power of fixing standards of flour! This is another departure from the power of the Canada Grain Act. It is true that the Grain Commission have not that 'power. Why does the Government not give to the -Grain Commission established under the Canada Grain Act any additional powers which may be necessary to control properly this kind of business?
By clause 9 we set aside two of the main and most important statutes of Canada, the Canada Grain Act and the Railway Act. These are superseded- by the powers of these three men who have not reported to -the Government and, indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) says that he will not ask them to report until their duties are completed. That is a fine departure from principles which have directed the affairs of this House and of this Parliament for so many years.
Another very important feature of this legislation is the -ample power given to take possession of wheat in transit or wheat which may have been sold or contracted for. This again is putting absolute, unrestricted power into the hands of these three men. The Government, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, have stated to this House t-hat they do not intend to exercise this power. What does this clause mean? It means that on Aug-


Mr. A. B. McOOIG ((Kent, 0.):: I wish to. join with the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) who has just sat down, in protesting against this legislation. The people I have the honour to represent are very much opposed to this resolution, which proposes to give to the Wheat Board control over the next crop. I have received telegrams from consumers, farmers and millers, all protesting against the continuance of the Wheat Board's operations in. 1920, and they have asked me to oppose this legislation in the House. I feel perfectly justified in doing so .because I know what a disadvantage the operations of the hoard have been to my people in the county of Kent in the past year. One of the Objections which we have is that the cost of operating the Wheat Board is paid oi\t of the crop, and eventually is paid toy the consumer. This is the only board or commission, I believe, that the Government has appointed that is paid in that way. All other boards or commissions .are paid out of the general revenues of the country, which means- that all the citizens have to contribute to the cost of operation. We figure that if the consumers oif this country aTe .going to pay for the expenses of the Wheat Board, and the farmers, .according to the minister's statement, are going to receive 40 cents per bushel for -the participation certificates, The consumers will pay on the basis of five bushels to a barrel of flour; in other words, for every barrel of flour they will pay $2 more than .they should if they got the flour on the basis of the price the farmer is selling his wheat to the millers for. So that from the consumer's standpoint this is unfair, and it is also unfair from the standpoint of the people of Ontario who have a limited amount of wheat to sell. In Ontario our prosperity depends not only upon the

wheat crop which we have to dispose of but also upon the stock industry. That industry is being reduced to-day to a very large extent owing to the present operations of the Wheat Board. Whealt has been sold and sent to European and other markets and we have been deprived of the offal from the wheat which otherwise we would have to devote to the stock industry. If the wheat were ground in Canadian mills we would have the advantage of the extra feed at reasonable cost. So far as the stock industry is concerned, you need only consult the reports of the markets of Toronto or those of any other province. Thirty thousand calyes more have been disposed of in 1920 than in 1919 on Toronto market because the farmers could not get the kind of feed necessary to raise them to maturity. What does that mean to the consumers of the country who are now complaining of the high cost of dairy products not only in Ontario but in other parts of the country? It simply means that in the next year or two the consumers will be unable to buy butter and cheese and other dairy products which heretofore they have enjoyed at reasonable prices. But notwithstanding that fact, and in face of the general cry throughout the country against the present burden of the high cost of living, we find the Government going ahead to-day, waving aside all objections, and purposing to re-establish the Wheat Board to handle the wheat crop for [another year. It is true the minister says that it is doubtful whether this legislation will be put into operation, but this very statement will leave a doubt in the minds of people as to the advisability or otherwise of growing wheat, because they will not know what action the Government may decide to take to interfere with their business. If the arguments advanced by the minister are sound, then why does he not undertake to control the price of oats *and bariey as well? Why does he not say that the agricultural implement industry of the country [DOT] should be controlled and that the price of agricultural implements be regulated? Why should the Government not regulate the prices of tools^ that are necessary to produce the wheat crop? I ask this question of the minister in all seriousness, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) sees fit to smile. These things should be regulated if the argument is sound that the wheat crop should be controlled by the board.
As has been stated by the hon. member for Vancouver, this board has made no

report to Parliament; practically speaking, it has informed nobody as to what it has accomplished. If the Government are going to continue such a body in existence, a body that is not responsible to Parliament or to the people of the country, and are going to empower this board to say what the prices shall be and how the wheat is to be disposed of, then I say emphatically that the Government are taking an unwise step, and I am satisfied that my 'constituents are fully justified in warning me to oppose the measure which is now before Parliament. The minister said that possibly there would be forty cents coming on the participation certificates, but he forgets the fact that 40 cents is already eaten up, and he is trying to hold up this participation certificate to the public to justify the action of the Government, Think of the fact, Sir, that it will cost the people 40 cents to sell one bushel of wheat.


George Green Foster: What is the hon.
gentleman's statement?


Archibald Blake McCoig: The statement is perfectly clear, and I hardly think it needs repetition. In the first place the Wheat Board retained from the farmers 15 cents a bushel, then wheat advanced 25 cents, and that made 40 cents, and then it again advanced 40 cents making 80 cents in all. But the first 40 cents was practically eaten up owing to the expenses of the operation of the board. Is not that right?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend had better not make his statement too determinedly because it is absolutely wrong.
.'Mr. MoGOIG:	The minister will not
deny the fact that 15 cents was retained from the producer in the first place; then wheat advanced 25 cents; that is 40 cents, then it advanced 40 cents more making 80 cents. Now it is said that 40 cento will be due on the participation certificate, but that 40 cents has already been eaten up by expenses, so that taking the 80 cents I have referred to there is still a discrepancy. of 40 cento which has to be accounted for.
iLet me say that the people of Ontario are interested not only in the production of wheat but also in the live stock industry. To the west of the Great Lakes possibly 90 per cent of the wheat crop has grown but there is a very small percentage of stock raising in that part of the country; and if the Government persists in its purpose to re-establish the Wheat Board it will simply mean that the live stock raising industry of Ontario will be ruined. The ac-

tion of the board may possibly build up the wheat industry for a short time, but it only means that they will crop their land with wheat in the West and ship it out of the country, and we who are trying not only to grow wheat but to raise stock shall find ourselves unable to carry on our industry. A statement has been issued which is supposed to come from the Dominion Millers .Association, and copies of it were in all our boxes this morning. Now, it is a significant fact that this circular should be distributed on the day the minister brings up this resolution. This circular says on the outside:
Do not sacrifice Canada's agricultural and consumers' interests to enrich ten or fifteen firms.-Short facts re wheat control. Important.
It is significant, I say, that this statement, which has been sent to all members and which is signed at the bottom by the Dominion Millers Association, should appear on the morning of the day the minister introduces this resolution into the House. However, let me say that the Dominion Millers Association need not worry very much at this particular time about the farmers and the consumers. That is not the question, and I do not believe that they are serious in this article, which does not give to members of the House the proper information on the subject. I only hope that before the minister goes further he' will give other millers who are interested a chance to reply to this message that has been sent to the different members to-day. I sincerely trust that the minister will not press this legislation. After all, it seems ridiculous to say that it will be put into operation only if the Government see fit. Thirty days from to-day in the province of Ontario we shall be threshing wheat; but the millers do not know what action the Government are likely to take. They do not know whether the Government will say "yes" or "no"; they cannot hazard any opinion as to whether the Government will take a notion to put this legislation into operation. The millers have no confidence in the Government and cannot come to any safe conclusion as to whether they should buy the farmer's wheat and what the consequences of this legislation will be; and we may find, as happened a year ago, that the farmers will have wheat in their bins waiting on the millers, who will be in a state of suspense and inaction, not knowing what steps the Government may take. 1 would urge upon the minister the importance of giving this matter some further
consideration, and take into account the interests of the consumers and producers of the province of Ontario as well as those of some of the large grain growers of the West.


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I may say that, representing as I do a constituency in which there is a large grain exchange, naturally the people of that part of the country are interested in the question of wheat control. I have received in the last few weeks resolutions from that grain exchange-the Port Arthur and Fort William Exchange- and from the city -council of Fort William opposing anything in the shape of control; and while I do not pretend to be the special representative of the Board of Trade or the City Council or the Grain Exchange, unless I thought their resolutions worthy of consideration I should not feel it incumbent upon me to support them. I, at this time, feel, that the war being over, the Government may be wise in considering as far as they -can the de-control of everything which we have been controlling in this country. I listened to the speech of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) very carefully and if I understood it correctly he said that this was enabling legislation. It is legislation for the purpose of giving the Government power, if they so choose, in some .emergency, to put it into force. I should like to say before the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) speaks that I would be glad to have him strengthen that statement by saying that it is the intention of the Government that this legislation shall not in any circumstances be put into force unless some urgent emergency arises affecting the vast majority of the people of this country.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend can take it as such.


Robert James Manion: I thank my right hon. friend; that is really the assurance that I wished to have. I place my views on record in the hope that the Government will use great discretion in putting this legislation into force unless there is a very great emergency.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. -Speaker, I do not wish to occupy the time of the committee in discussing the resolution at the present moment but if I did I would traverse the ground covered in the very excellent speech of the -hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). I agree absolutely in the contentions which he has

urged upon this House against this proposition. I cannot conceive of a single reason in justification of this proposed resolution. I am against committing to the Government the power sought for in the terms of this resolution and I venture to prophesy that the Government itself will regret very much that it has upon the statute books the particular legislation that it is now seeking.
Mr. 0. E. GOULD (Assiniboia): I have listened with much interest to the remarks of hon. gentlemen in this House who do not grow wheat. I think that it would not be inappropriate that there should be a few remarks on this resolution from an individual who grows wheat and has grown considerable quantities of it at different times and for a long number of years on the western plains. I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as indicating that I am diametrically opposed to this legislation or entirely in sympathy with it .hut nevertheless I propose to attempt to lay [DOT]before the House the views of one from the prairies who speaks as a layman. I was much interested in the address of the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) and his remarks caused me to wonder why his interest in the question was so great. I am prepared to give the hon. gentleman credit for disapproving
4 p.m. of the principle of soeializa-
,	tion, as he termed it, although
he did not give us an interpretation of the word. He objected to this proposal because he objected to socialization. My mind reverted to the date of May 31 when I spoke on the Budget and I wondered if some of the things I said that night were not really the guiding principles which caused him to rise in his place and say what he did today.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can assure my hon.
friend that I never remembered his speech for one moment and that it had nothing whatever to do with it.


Mr. GOULD:: It was not my intention
to suggest that he remembered it. What I said was that I was reminded, of it by some of the things which the hon, gentleman said. However that may be I would like to refer tp what the hon. gentleman from Kent said about the consumer paying all the expense. To go back to the prairies let me tell the House what happened in my own personal experience. I have wondered why the Wheat Board should have set an initial price of $2.26 a bushel when, on taking my No. 1 Northern wheat to the market I re-

ceived only $1.96 a bushel. If that credit was allowed it was allowed grudgingly. How the hon. member for Kent can assume that the consumer has been paying all the expense when there was that disparity between the price I received and the price set by the Wheat Board is something that I cannot understand. When the assertion is made that the consumer alone is paying the expense I am not prepared to admit that such is the case. I know whereof I speak because I have in my possession the participation certificate showing that my statement is absolutely correct. The hon. member for Centre Vancouver spoke of the credit which had been extended to members of the Wheat Board and said that they had been given unlimited credit by the Dominion of Canada to enable them to finance this business. He pictured the, woeful situation that would result from Russian wheat, being shipped into the European markets. He said that this was going to depress the price of wheat and that 'consequently the credit which had been given to the Wheat Board by the Government was going to work very much against us. In the latter part of his address, while he was speaking about individual countries, such as Belgium, Greece, France and others, being in the market to purchase our wheat, he contended there would be no competition on account of Russian wheat coming in. Possibly I misinterpreted his remarks but I never listened to an argument that had less to support it. I only point that out as something for the committee to consider.	.
I remember that last fall I travelled somewhat through the state of North Dakota. I travelled from elevator to elevator and got the prices of wheat paid there. I knew as a positive fact that $1.96 a bushel was the maximum that I had received for my wheat when I watched the same grade of wheat sold at Sherwood, North Dakota, for $3.05. I watched the seller take his money. I brought samples home with me samples of the wheat which I had seen sold by that individual at the elevator. That man received $3.05 for his wheat and he put an extra $1.11 into his pocket. He had the use of the money all summer. I see all around the country advertisements depicting the glories of these participation certificates and showing the Dominion of Canada is going to receive $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 as a result of the sale of the wheat crop. But no word of explanation has been uttered why $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 has been taken from the agricultural community and

retained

during the whole year. The forty cents a bushel that we are promised is not any great cause for rejoicing, especially when a man within a few miles of me across an imaginary line is receiving $1, $1.05 and $1.11 more for the same grade of wheat than I am. I was reminded when the hon. gentleman addressed a few remarks to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) of what the manufacturing industries would say if this Parliament entered their institutions, dictated to them and declared that they should receive a certain price during the whole year for their implements and other products and that the balance should be retained until some indefinite time when they would have the money given to them. I wondered what a storm of protest would be raised. Yet that is what the Government did do with the agricultural classes. We protested not. The interest of the consumer in this country depends on the stabilizing of the price between producer and consumer.
We of the West , examined this thing closely in our conventions and in our associations. and I know that a strong sentiment was expressed there in favour of the consumer. If further proof were needed I would ask you to go back to only a few years ago during the war when our province of Saskatchewan gave a trainload of flour to the Imperial authorities. I do not cite that to advertise ourselves as patriots hut as proof that sometimes these patriotic senti-mentfe do enter into the minds of the people who gather in the little country associations of the West to discuss these matters.
I do not wish to go into this question any further. I might suggest, perhaps, that the Wheat Board should contain a stronger element of farmers, for T believe that the men who have devoted their whole lives to the raising of wheat are in ju^t as good and even a better position to know what the conditions are from the producers' and consumers' standpoints than the men who are usually appointed to the Wheat Board. I would recommend that if the hoard is to be reconstituted a larger percentage of wheat producers be aopointed.
I would say a word or two in favour of the resolution. I have lived too many years on the western plains not to know that there are two sides to everv -question. I have many times had my wheat" istore-d all over the town nearest to my farm waiting for cars, the elevators being full. During that time the markets fluctuated-and they always go down when there is a stock on hand such as that-and my price has been
depressed -time and again because, first, the railway companies could not supply the cars; and, secondly, because of the evils of the car order book which was manipulated to our disadvantage for some time; however, we over-came that abuse. But I am glad to say the Wheat Board has given us an equitable price. The under-dog, or the man with a haul of fifteen or twenty miles, is no longer discriminated against in favour of the man who lives ^close in; on the contrary, he has an equal chance with his more favourably situated competitor, land that is one very good feature of the work of the Wheat Board.
In conclusion, let me state that I propose to vote for the 're-establishment of the Wheat Board this year. I pledge myself only for this year.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Sneaker. I admire the extraordinary impartiality of the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). He speaks on both sides of the question-


Oliver Robert Gould: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: -and I am at a loss to understand whether he favours the revival of the Wheat Board or not.


Oliver Robert Gould: Well, I told you at last,


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I do not know whether the hon. member said at the last what he meant, or whether he said so at the outset of his remarks. I am not a farmer, hut 1 have heard this matter explained very fully, and it seems to me that there can be no argument whatever against the reestablishment of the Wheat Board, if conditions require it. I am one of those who would go further than that-I would have the Wheat Board made a permanent institution, and I would make it impossible, if it can be made impossible by legislation, for any man or any set of -men to speculate in the food of this country. I -think that would be in the interest of the farmer and in the interest of the consumer. If the plan has worked in the past year so successfully-call it socialism if you like-and if it can be worked as successfully in the future, it ought to be put into effect. Why should this House provide facilities for gambling in the necessaries of life? And yet that is exactly the situation that has existed in this country almost fro-in the beginning of things right down to the present time; but a stop was put to it during the war because it was absolutely necessary that it should be stopped.

I am not quite sure if I understand the memlber for Assiniboia, but I think he said that on the whole, taking it by and large, while some wheat growers might get a higher price for their wheat in isolated places, the Wheat Board was a good thing for the farmer. I would like to know if I understand the hon. gentleman correctly.


Oliver Robert Gould: I made that positive statement only in regard to the equalization of the marketing conditions during the period of our winter-one farmer living far away from town being put on a footing of equality with the farmer living closer in.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Having regard to all the conditions that surround the marketing of wheat, that is, the possibility of capitalistic influences tieing up transportation by ordering cars for this, that and the other purpose, and thereby creating a car shortage, it seems to me that the wise course is to continue the operations of this Wheat [DOT]Board, which gives to every wheat producer the full price that can be obtained by this wholesale marketing of the wheat crop of the country.
While I think the Government is indisposed to go- into this socializing scheme, I hope that this matter will be discussed in this House next session, and that we will then extend the scheme. As far as I am concerned; I am satisfied to see this method of marketing -wheat extended to the marketing of anything else if by so doing we can eliminate a whole lot of inequitable conditions and thus make it the permanent policy of this country.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: (Mr. Speaker, a considerable part of the discussion on this resolution has revolved around the general question of the principle of governmental interference with the laws and operation of trade. For myself, the longer I am in public life and associated with public affairs the less I feel tied, not only to any custom but to any particular principle as being applicable in determining what the course of government should -be in relation to the laws of trade. Macauley said ninety years ago in the British House of Commons that he distrusted all general theories of government; that he did not believe there was any general theory of government that might not in some country and under particular circumstances be the 'best foT that country at 262
that 'time. The same is true to-day. Generally speaking, and -aside from special considerations, it may be well to let trade take its course. The hon. member who has just -resumed his seat (Mr. -McKenzie) says that trade should take its course in steel, in coal, in iron, in Wheat. But we -all know that there is no country in the world to-day where trade in steel unmolested by government does take its course; and the same is true of trade in coal and iron and of almost every other industry. -Coal take its course! Does the horn, member know what is being done with coal in free trade England to-day? Is the Government doing nothing there in relation -to the price of coal? Why, -the Government controls the whole trade of England in coal. The Government says to every coal dealer in Great Britain: You may sell your coal in the outside world for whatever you can get for it, but if you sell it at home

 -and you must do so when it is asked for-you -must get $10 to $12 a ton. With what consequence? That British coal brings in the outside world for export about $30 a ton, and for home consumption about $10 a ton. That is the way free trade England deals with the matter in relation to her coal supplies. With what result? Those who. sell for export have an advantage over those who sell for home consumption. But the Government steps in again and establishes a system of differentials, a system of distribution between all the dealers, with the ultimate result that the man who sells abroad comes out just the same as the man who sells at home. My hon. friend also- asks: How is it that we have flour made from Canadian wheat selling more cheaply in England than in -Canada I do not know that we have; but if that be the case, I do know why we have that condition of things. It is because in free trade England the Government leaves trade to itself to the extent of fixing the price of flour and of making up the loss to the miller and to the baker. It fixes the price of both bread and flour.
I have led up to the reason that actuates me in supporting the principles of this resolution, because there are special circumstances in Canada in relation to wheat and the wheat trade of this Dominion, just as there are special circumstances in England in relation to flour and to flour supplies, and in relation as well to coal and coal supplies. What are those special circumstances that apply and have direct relation to wheat as distinguished from the circumstances that have relation to coal, steel



and iron cited by the hon. member? The great circumstance is this. As regards our wheat, we consume at home about one-quarter or about one-fifth; we sell abroad in the European market about three-quarters or four-fifths, the. proportions depending on the extent of our crop. What is the condition of that European market? Is it the same condition that prevailed before the war? Is it a free trade condition? Is trade taking its course? Is every one in England permitted to say by deciding when to buy just what he will pay for wheat? Is he permitted to he will pay for wheat? Is he permitted to buy now and say: "I will pay so much now," and is he permitted to say: "I will take my time and wait for six months and I will get the wheat at less?" He is not permitted to do anything of the kind. The very same thing that we are assailed for doing in relation to wheat selling here, England is doing in relation to wheat buying over there. France, Italy, every purchasing country, at all events, every purchasing country that buys to any great extent, is doing the same thing in relation to wheat buying over there. Therefore, whatever may be the breach of tradition or theory we may be committing, we find it committed by all those purchasing countries, and that is why we are placed in the position in which we are. Great Britain does not allow her wheat importers to. come here and dicker among our wheat exporters for the sale of our wheat. Great Britain dictates what those importations will be, and, in a word, controls the wheat importer by finance. France and Italy do the same thing. Under the circumstances, are we doing our full duty in relation to the great wheat export trade of this country if we disarm ourselves of all powers to do likewise for the wheat exporters and wheat producers of Canada? Supposing this may take place-and it has taken place; it is something that is not merely supposition or theory-supposing we should find this condition when we come to the point when we must sell our wheat. We cannot be at a loss to know when that point is. We have to sell our wheat when the wheat is ready. We have to have our wheat moved. We cannot sit still at Ottawa and see the wheat of Western Canada stacked back on the western farms. There is a limited time within which, a large proportion of our wheat, some fifty to seventy million bushels, must be moved out of that country and on its way to market. Supposing it results as it has resulted that 
those countries, buying through one single agency, operate as one and are represented in this Dominion and in this great wheat selling area, po.ssibly in the United States as well, by one buyer alone? Do you think that is a very comfortable or desirable position to put the wheat producer and the wheat exporter of this country in? Who is there who knows the wheat market, who knows the limitations of transport, the limited time within whicl) the transportation must be made, who would say that the exporter or producer in this country would have any fair show in the world if the importing countries were represented by one man with the full monopolistic power that the governments of 'Europe could place behind him? They operated so during the war. I know they had difficulty in doing so; but they managed to do it, perhaps not with perfect success, but with great success. And if they attempt to do so again and if as a consequence-and it is an inevitable consequence-by their might they bring down the price of wheat, does any one imagine the United States is going to sdt idly by and see the Lever Act .a dead letter and permit the price of wheat that they may. have for export to be dictated by 'Great Britain and other European buying countries? I do not imagine so. They may do it; they may not; but should they do it, then with the circumstance of united buying overseas and controlled wheat in the United -States, is it the part of wisdom that the Government of Canada should meet such an eventuality with its hands tied behind its back?


Mr. ROBB:: Will the minister explain
the Lever Act?


Arthur Meighen: The Lever Act is a war measure of the United States which contains very wide powers, powers, I believe, analagous to those of our War Measures Adt, but powers undoubtedly wide enough to enable them to do, in relation to wheat, what we propose to do in this country if we exercise the powers vested in us by this legislation. It is an Act which goes out of effedt, I understand, when the United States are at peace, but I am not able to prognosticate when the United States will technically be at peace. I do not want the House to get the impression that the invocation of the Lever Act by the United States is a necessary prerequisite, a necessary ingredient of the conditions that might compel this Government to operate the powers that would be vested in us if this legislation passes. It would neces-

sarily be a very important factor. Whether it would be an indispensable factor or not, I would not care to say. That would depend upon the effect of concentrated buying by the great purchasing governments who now control the purchasing end of the wheat market.
I have heard the argument advanced that the operations of the Wheat Board last year resulted in placing on the consumer in this country an undue burden. U understood the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Mc-Coig) to say, and to challenge correction if he were wrong, that the Wheat Board's operation cost the consumer or producer, I do not know which, at the rate of forty cents a bushel. He really was so far, so marathonly far, if I may coin a word from the facts, that it was impossible to correct such an assertion as that. I do not know what the cost of the operations of the Wheat Board, all told, may be, but I have read the statement of one closely associated with the board; I think it was Mr. Riddell; if it was not Mr. Riddell, it was Mr. Bangley, Minister of Agriculture of (Saskatchewan, who stated that in his belief the total operations of the board would cost not more than one-quarter of one cent a bushel. That is some distance from forty cents.


James Alexander Robb: Does that include the elevation?


Arthur Meighen: No, the operations of the board, that is to say, the expenses incurred by the board in the purchase or sale of wheat, not the railway or elevator charges. I am not an authority for the estimate. I had not time to check my authority, but it was either Mr. Riddell who is manager of the 'Saskatchewan Co-Operative Grain Company, and also a member of the Wheat Board, or Mr. Langley, who has given the closest attention to the operations of the board from the very begin-mg, and I apprehend were it either of these men he is not very far out in his estimate. As to that cost, whatever it may be, falling on the consumer, the argument is very hard to comprehend, and unless I comprehend it, I cannot answer it very well. The board buys the wheat. It takes the wheat as an agent does, pays a payment on account, sells it in the world's market for what it is able to get for it, and then such excess as may be in its coffers after payment of expenses it distributes among the producers of the wheat. It seems clear to me that under that system the producer of the wheat pays, as he ought to pay, whatever cost there may he entailed in the purchase 262J
and sale of his commodity, but that cost per bushel amounts to only a small sum. It is certainly utterly beyond argument to assert that the cost falls upon the consumer of Canada.
Is the consumer unfairly treated by this system or not? The consumer would be unfairly treated if artificial means were exerted to raise the price of wheat beyond its proper level, having regard to demand and supply in the world's market. I cannot see how any artificial means have raised that price. It is true that the united strength of the Wheat Board is better able to avoid artificial bearing on the wheat market than would be the scattered strengths of variou-wheat producers, but I do not think that is undue assistance. I do not think it resulted last year in any cost to the consumer. On the contrary, I think it resulted in a lessening of the cost to the consumer. The board have a system whereby they pay for wheat $2.15 a bushel, being first assured that in that initial payment there was no chance of loss to the Canadian people. They assured themselves of that first, and I have not the slightest doubt the assurance was absolutely iron-clad. They knew what they were doing when they made that initial payment. They sold the wheat, and they sold it to millers at such price as they felt was fair to the producer, that is, at approximately what they expected to get in the world's market. They controlled the product which the miller made out of it, and the price at which the-flour sold, and then they said in relation, to export flour that some extra charge must be made, because the price at which wheat was selling in the world's market later on was at a level that justified them m demanding that flour made from our wheat should bring, I think, $2 a barrel excess. The result was that there was advantage to the Canadian consumer, and it is all reflected in the comparative levels of prices, because there was not a month during the operations of the board when the level of flour prices in this country was not lower than the level in the United States. I think I may say it was lower than m any country where the level was not artificially depressed by the power, of government, as it was in England. It is undeniably true that the consumers of this country last year got their flour between $1 and $2 a barrel cheaper, at any rate, between 50 cents and $2 a barrel cheaper, than the prevailing price in the United States, and at the same time the producer of the wheat, as stated by Mr. Wood, the

President of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, got for his wheat a larger average price than the producer of wheat in the United States. Again I do not vouch for that statement. I do not know whether it is correct or not, hut it has been made authoritatively by Mr. 'Wood, who is a member of the Wheat Board, and also President of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. And that brings me to a reflection.
The Government has brought in this enabling resolution, not that the Government seeks new responsibility, because every responsibility brings criticism, and particularly a responsibility exercised throughout Western Canada, where farmer political organizations are only too anxious to level everything at the door of the Government that they can, but we have brought in this legislation in an effort to see that we do not later meet a situation where we are unable to see that justice is done to the western wheat grower. Having done so, what reception do we meet in this House? Have we met from the peculiar representatives of western opinion, at all events from those who claim to be peculiarly representative of western opinion, the support we might have expected? What have we heard from hon. gentlemen diagonally across the floor? We have received from farmers' organizations-the 'Grain Growers of Alberta, the Grain Growers of Saskatchewan, the Grain Growers of Manitoba, and the Canadian Council of Agriculture-resolutions the meaning of which no one could misinterpret. They ask that we arm ourselves with power to do what we did last year in relation to wheat. They warn us that if we do not do that, we may meet a situation where great injustice will be done to the producer of wheat in this country. That is the position we are in. They do not say: Enforce it under all circumstances. I have seen no resolution to that effect from any Dominion dr provincial organization, 'but they say: Put yourselves in a position where later on, if eventualities are such and conditions so converge that you must interfere or see injustice done, you can act with effect. Having done that, we come to' Parliament and after two and a half hours of debate all the encouragement and assistance that we get from hon. gentlemen diagonally opposite is a dubious, wavering, hesitating, misty criticism from the hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), arguing against the operations of the board, and seeking to lay on the backs of the 'Government, and of the Wheat Board which the Government created, responsibil-
ity because the Americans put an embargo on wheat, and because, as a consequence, there 'was a higher level for a time in Dakota than where he produced his wheat. He sought by his speech to place upon this Government responsibility for that state of affairs, which he knew we were no more responsible for than the Government of China. It was a critical speech from beginning to end, but knowing that the farmer associations and that his president had asked for this legislation he did us the tardy justice of sitting down with the assertion that *with all its faults and with all its blame he [DOT]was going to support the continuance of the Wheat Board hut only for one year. What have we heard from the leader of the Farmers' party, after two and a half hours of debate?
Mr. 'CALDWELL Are we to understand that the minister is closing the debate?
Mr. MEIGtHEN: I did not say I was closing the debate. I earnestly hope I have prodded these hon. gentlemen opposite to speak their minds. I was very much afraid that the debate was going to close without a word from them. The leader of the Farmers' party is their recognized leader in this House and one would expect him to be the spokesman, the ardent; first, and leading advocate in this House of what they were seeking by legislation. The debate has proceeded for two and a half hours, and perhaps a dozen have spoken, -many in critical vein, from both sides of the House, but not one word have we heard from him.
I did not think that, like the colonels of Germany, he was 'going to lead his forces from behind. I would have expected him to be the first to stand in his place and champion this legislation, because it is only enabling legislation, and it is precisely the enabling legislation which the organizations which he peculiarly represents -and sponsors have asked for from this Government.
Let me close by expressing the hope, not that we will be compelled 'to put this into force, for I hope circumstances so compelling will not be present, but that what I have said will lead hon. gentlemen opposite who wish to be fair in regard to this matter, and of hon. gentlemen who are opposite me in 'the Agrarian party, to lend assistance and encouragement to the 'Government when it seeks to meet them and seeks to be in a position to do what is right on behalf of those they claim to represent. Let them not be so tardy in coming forward and lending encouragement to the Government.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Lest the very sensitive spirit of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) he unduly exercised in regard to our attitude in this debate, I hasten to take some part in the discussion of the subject before the House. I do not wish to disturb the hon. gentleman's equanimity further as he already seems to be somewhat perturbed; and I am very sorry indeed that he deemed ii necessary to take up about half an hour ol the time of the House in dealing with mat-teis which he could very well have spoken of in about five minutes. This question is after all a simple one in its outlook, and yet it involves far-reaching possibilities. When the Government a year ago assumed the power of exercising a measure of control over the marketing of wheat in this country I entirely supported them in that action. The conditions that existed in Europe at that time, in respect of the buying of wheat particularly, made it necessary then, in my judgment, that the Government should have the power which was granted1 them. I will go further. I think it was necessary, under the conditions that existed a year ago, to create the Canada Wheat Board, and I am bound to say that under the disorganized conditions of world trade in grain resulting of necessity from the war, the operation of the board has entirely justified its existence, and its work. We come now to the question that the Government have submitted in the resolution before the House, and that is, that they be enabled to continue the operations of the Wheat Board should this, in their judgment, be necessary for another year. I have been hoping to hear some more detailed and' complete arguments from the Government in support of this legislation than have so far been advanced. I think the Minister of the Interior furnished the only argument that constitutes a real reason why the board should1 be continued for another year, and that is, the possibility of unified buying again in Europe. At the present time that is not the case. While during the years of the war the Royal Commission on wheat supplies in London had the practical control of the buying of wheat, and other cereals for that matter, since the Armistice has been signed the various countries in Europe have each organized its own government buying agency. At least, this is very largely the case; some of the neutral countries are getting back to old conditions of trade. Every one who knows anything of the European situation must realize that conditions there are very unstable, and in these circumstances I think, perhaps, there is justification for the Government assuming the power which they are asking for under this legislation. I should like to know, however, and I trust the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, I take it, will close the debate, will inform the House, whether or not this is a settled policy of the Government. There have been whisperings and misgivings that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who, as well as being an able debater, is also' a skilful politician, had in mind the possibility of the permanent continuance of this board in order that he might hold out to the farmers of Western Canada-who, I can assure him and the House, are not in a very friendly mood to the hon. gentleman-some counter-attraction to the requests that have repeatedly been made to governments in this country for reductions in the tariff. I do not know what the minister's intentions are, but his speech to-day rather leaves the suspicion in my mind that he is harbouring such an idea. If he is, I think that the House and the people of the country are entitled to know what the policy of the Government is. Are they going to extend this principle and establish a permanent policy? That, I submit, is something we are entitled to have some information upon. It is one thing to interfere with trade because of the exigencies and conditions resultant from war. It is another thing to have that control woven into the fabric of our laws as a permanent policy of the country; and in that respect we are entitled to some information from the Government.
Just 'a word or two of criticism in respect of the Bill, and what I have to say I shall offer in a friendly spirit and with a desire to assist in working out this measure in the best possible way. I notice that the Bill provides that it shall remain in operation until one day after the close of the next session of Parliament. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior knows quite well, and I think my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir 'George Foster) is also aware of the fact that if this Wheat Board is to be continued for another year its operations must be made to terminate at the end of the grain year, which is the 31st of August. That has been'the settled practice in the trade in this country, and I am just a little bit curious to know why this legislation is made to terminate a day after the expiration of the next session of Parliament. I will tell my hon. friends now that if this

legislation goes through in its present form, and if they are still occupying the treasury benches at the next session of Parliament -which, according to all indications, is somewhat doubtful; but let us assume for the sake of argument that they will occupy those -benches then-it will be necessary for them to bring down another measure to extend -the operations of the Wheat Board for another period. Either that 'or they must change the existing Bill so that the operations of the Board shall terminate a year from the 31st of August next, should the control he continued. That is a point which perhaps, in the hurry that has prevailed, I have no doubt, in the inner cit-cles of the -Government in bringing so much legislation before Parliament at the close of the session, may have escaped the observation of my hon. friend. I am of the opinion that no very great harm can be done through this measure. Rather, let me -state it this way; it may be a provision against, conditions arising of which we have no inkling now, to leave this power,in the hands of the Government for another year. Personally I am opposed entirely to any permanent policy that means the control of the marketing of grain in this country. I agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). With him occasionally I have differed in the past; but I am at one with him in this respect, that this measure, if adopted as a permanent policy, will be a long step forward in the direction of the socialization of industry in this country. If my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior and other members of the Government contemplate embarking on the theories of Marxian socialism in this country, well and good; but any permanent control of wheat marketing in this country means that and nothing else, and for that reason I do not think it is wise as a permanent policy, either in the interests of the consumers or in the interests of the producers, and I desire to so state my position in that regard in relation to this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to take up further time discussing the matter. There may be other hon. gentlemen who desire to speak on the subject; but I have briefly and, T hope, clearly presented to the House my views on this legislation; and, in closing, I may express the hope that I have satisfied the tender -susceptibilities of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior.


James Alexander Robb: I desire to offer briefly a few observations on the merits of this legislation 
and on the working of the Wheat Board during the past year. The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in presenting the Bill was apparently doubtful as to whether it would be required or not. He left the House in doubt as to whether it was the policy of the Government to extend the operations of this Wheat Board for another year. But no person listening to the speech of the Minister of the Interior could he in any doubt as to what was the policy of the Government in so far as he is concerned. I gathered from the Minister of the Interior that at least he was convinced that the operations of the Wheat Board should be continued for another year.


Arthur Meighen: From what sentence -did the hon. gentleman get that opinion? Did he get it from the sentence in which I said that I hoped circumstances would be such that it would not be continued?


James Alexander Robb: 
Arthur Meighen: Because the oat purchasing end is not controlled abroad.
Mr. ROBiB: Why would it not be a good thing to control the product of the dairy? Will my hon. friend say that the product of the dairy is not controlled in England? As has already been pointed out, if the whisperings we hear about the corridors are .correct there is something in the minds of certain members of the Gov-
5 p.m. ernment that does not appear in this Bill because we hear of the nationalization not only of the handling of the wheat crop hut of the elevators of the West, and then it will only he .a step to the nationalization of the bake shops. We will be rapidly approaching a condition of socialism in this country. The handling of tthe grain crop last year by the Wheat Board, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, has been satisfactory neither to the western farmer, the grower of the crop, nor to the eastern stock raiser. I can quite understand why some interests in Western Canada are in favour of continuing the operations of the Wheat Board. There are certain interests in Western Canada that have not suffered from the handling of the Canadian wheat crop. I have in my hand the statement of the Manitoba grain elevators under Government operation. 'The Manitoba grain elevators, under Government operation, for the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 made a total loss on operation of $177,203.89. This is the official statement of the auditor of revenues of the province of Manitoba. By authority given by an Order in 'Council dated August, 1919, regulation No. 5 of the Wheat Board fixed the .price to the producer. Regulation No. 8 fixes the elevator charges. The interior elevators of. Western Canada were allowed by the Grain Board to collect from the producers of the grain 5 and 6 oemts >a bushel on No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 Northern wheat. On wheat below those grades the interior elevators collected 8 cents a bushel. So we find that the poorer the wheat and the less the producer received from it the more the elevator took out of it.
What will that mean on the total crop of the three Prairie Provinces? We will say,


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that. The *hon. gentleman must he thinking of exports of wheat. I said that our flour ranged from 50 cents to $2 a barrel below the American price.


James Alexander Robb: Then perhaps the minister would like me to put on record the orders made whereby the Grain Board imposed Upon. Canadian millers exporting flour a tax running from $2 down to 50 cents a barrel. Perhaps the minister admits that?


Arthur Meighen: I know an extra amount w.as collected. What I stated was in regard to export; the hon. gentleman stated it was in regard to import. That collection went to swell the ^participation certificates.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it was on exports. Now, the result of this policy of the Grain Board was the complete loss to the Canadian millers of the flour trade that had been built up in the. West India Islands. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (.Sir George Foster) had obtained for Canadian millers specially favourable concessions in the West India Islands; we had a preference in that market. Canada had practically captured the West Indian market for flour, but the action of this Board ruined that market for Canadian millers and turned it over to the southern millers of the United States, and we shall have to again exert ourselves to recover that market.
Will any hon. member deny that statement? The Grain Board did more than that. Their action in taxing the Canadian miller from $2 to 50 cents a barrel on all the flour exported killed the export business, and the big flour mills of this country were practically shut down during the winter months. Flour was piled up at the seaboard. But the Grain Board would not

allow our millers to export or acquire a market for that flour; they simply held the flour up. That did not mean there was no market for flour outside. There was an export market, because I have under my hand evidence that flour bought by the Wheat Board for $10.65 on export ports was held by them at $13.40 United States currency, equal to $15 Canadian currency, or a profit of $4.35 a barrel. Now, the Wheat Board had an offer for this flour that would have returned them at that time-and my information is from a reliable man who was closely associated with the board-a profit of about $3.75 a barrel. They refused that offer because they wanted the money in United States currency. The result was that the mills were shut down and dairy feed was unobtainable throughout this country. Then they will answer you by saying: We prohibited the export of bran and shorts; we fixed the price of bran and shorts so that the diarymen of Canada could1 get these commodities at a reasonable price. Yes, they did fix the price, and not only last year; under the board of control appointed by this Government the price was fixed in the fall of 1917, and it has been fixed ever since. Export was prohibited; you were informed that you could not export a pound of bran or shorts; it w7as all required for the Canadian dairymen. That statement was made in the House by responsible ministers of the Crown. Well, Sir, I have under my hand an official return from the External Trade Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Department of Trade and Commerce. I find that in the year ending 31st March, 1917-remember, that was the year when export of bran and shorts was prohibited; when all our bran and shorts were said to be required for Canadian dairymen-I find that in that year bran and shorts to the value of $5,167,257 were exported.


Mr. McMASTER:: Under special license?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that later.
In 1918 bran and shorts were exported to the value of $1,457,424. In the year ending 31st December, 1919, only last year, bran and shorts to the value of $4,377,341 were exported. A representative who has been lobbying here for control told me only this week that not one pound of bran and shorts had been exported since November of last year. Well, if that is true the statement submitted by the Department of Trade and Commerce is not correct, because I have here the statements of exports for the last
months of 1919: October, 3,479 tons ; November, 8,848 tons; December, 2,036 tons; January, 1920, 1,075 tons; February, 559 tons- that was the month when very few of the mills were running, the operation of the others having been stopped by the export policy of the Grain Board-March, 821 tons. The question naturally presents itself: who is the pet miller in Canada who goes quietly to the representatives of the Government and obtains an export license enabling him to sell bran in the United States? Why was that bran sent to the United States market or to some other market? Because it was worth in that other market $10 to $15 a ton more than it was worth in Canada. The price was fixed in Canada. The authorities said to the miller: If you sell bran and shorts at more than a certain price we will take away your license; but they gave him permission to ship bran and shorts out of Canada, where prices ten or fifteen dollars a ton higher could be obtained- and there was no question of doing away with the license; the miller was allowed to go on and do business. There is some particular pet in this case; it is always so in connection with legislation that gives specal privileges to special classes.
Now, the impression may be gained from the debate that this tax of $2, $1.50 and 50 cents to some countries which was exacted on the exportation of flour goes into the national treasury. It does not do anything of the kind; it goes into the pocket of the Wheat Board in the form of the surplus that the Minister of trade and Commerce boasts of to-day, and such portion of it as does not go to expenses will be distributed amongst those who hold participation certificates. So that this Wheat Board not only attempt to control the purchase and sale of wheat; they control for their own benefit the flour mills throughout Canada, and I suppose to-morrow they will attempt to control the bakeshops throughout Canada.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: May I put a question to my hon. friend?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I understood from his remarks that in connection with the order for sale of wheat in England to which he refers there was a loss, having regard to the price which subsequently had to be paid in Canada for that grain. Who bore that loss and how was it made up?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say there was a
loss. I quoted a statement made publicly in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange that Mr. COMMONS
Lloyd Harris had said that the right hon. Prime Minister had cabled the Rt. Hon. Arthur Sifton to sell fifty or seventy-five million bushels of Canadian wheat, and the impression left upon the members of the Grain Exchange was that because Mr. Lloyd Harris or Rt. Hon. Arthur Sifton or whoever was acting for them had carried out these instructions and had sold this wheat, it became necessary to close the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and fix the price of wheat so that the wheat could be secured and delivered without too great a loss to Canada. I am waiting for some person to clear that up.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me for a moment, I will clear it up in a single sentence. There is not a shadow of foundation for a statement of that kind or any such inference from !a statement of that kind as my hon. friend has made on several occasions in this House, leading to the impression that the Government sold short in Great Britain and then, to cover themselves, stopped the exchange operations when wheat went up. If any one says that he makes a base, unfounded assertion which has not on iota of truth in it. Further, it is not very* first-handed work for a member of Parliament to try to give currency to an impression of that kind.


James Alexander Robb: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister must remember that I am simply quoting from a speech delivered before the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.


George Green Foster: Quoting is
sometimes very bad work.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I will pass it over
to my hon. friend. I have the speech here; it has been published and circulated and is obtainable by any body. It was not hidden under a bushel.


George Green Foster: Will my hon.
friend tell us exactly what the statement was? Does he mean to say that he is referring to the statement that he read from Dr. Magill's speech? Is that it?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Green Foster: Did Dr. Magill say that the Government had telegraphed Mr. Sifton to sell 75,000,000 bushels of wheat short that this wheat had been sold short and that therefore the , exchange' had to be stopped when wheat was going up in order that the Government might cover? He will not find any statement like that made by Dr. Magill.
TMr. Robb. i


James Alexander Robb: The minister is going further than I did. Does the minister wish me to put on Hansard once more this statement made by Dr. Magill? Well, I will put it on. This is the report of whVt Dr. Magill said:
On recovering I went to Mr. Harris' office. He told me he had been at the conference in Ottawa, that he knew all that had gone on, and had talked with grain men, and that he came hack to London believing that it was his duty to sell Canadian wheat to England and to neutral countries. Mark you, after the market had been opened, Mr. Harris, Chairman of the War Trade Mission, believed it was his duty to sell Canadian wheat to England and to neutral countries. He also told me that a cablegram had been sent by Sir Robert Borden to Mr. Arthur Sifton, telling him among other things to sell fifty to seventy-five million bushels of our wheat.
That was in the month of July. Were there fifty to seventy-five million bushels of wheat in Canada to sell them? Was not the wheat in the fields growing green, looking good? But all at once the hot winds came along and the wheat crop 'began to shrink. Then, the market was closed. The people of the country will draw their own inference. The statement is made that Mr. Arthur Sifton did sell the wheat, and no one denies that to-day.


George Green Foster: The statement is not made that Mr. Sifton sold 75,000,000 bushels of wheat. I take issue wi-th my hon. friend. He has not read any statement to that effect.


James Alexander Robb: The minister to-day denies that statement that the wheat was sold.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody made the statement except yourself.


James Alexander Robb: Do not be so sure about that.


Arthur Meighen: Who did?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is very good at cross-examining witnesses in the box, but I do not propose to have him cross-examine me.


Arthur Meighen: That is a wise decision.


James Alexander Robb: 
George Green Foster: Maybe my hon. friend will take my denial now; I give it to him.


An hon. MEMBER:: Better late than
never.


James Alexander Robb: It is a good tiling at last to clear this matter up. That destroys the whole speech that was delivered before the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.


George Green Foster: Unfortunately
for my hon. friend, this having been cleared up, the material for many future speeches of my hon. friend has been taken away.


James Alexander Robb: 
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South) :: Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a few remarks in regard to the resolution before we adopt the general principles contained therein. I. appreciate the fact that this is only enabling legislation; that the Government are asking for it in the event of certain things developing during the present year, and that it may not he necessary. and it is hoped by many that it will net he necessary to take any action under it. This is a safeguard that the Government are endeavouring to have in the event of certain conditions arising.
I have watched with a great deal of interest the operations of the Wheat Board

during the past year, and I regret very much that we have no information, ne reports, as to how they have operated or as to what the final results of their administration will be during the year in which they have been carrying on. It may be wise in that respect that the Government are not asking Parliament to enact direct legislation, but that they be guided in their future action to a certain extent by the success or failure of the board. As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, it is undoubtedly true that with a rising market, it would be practically impossible for the board to fail to make a success of their operations during the past year, but that with different conditions prevailing under a falling market disaster might have resulted.
I am afraid that many hon. members overlook the fact that wheat growing is not our only agricultural industry. Any one reading over this resolution might well imagine that wheat raising was the sole industry of Canada, and the disposal of wheat the matter of greatest concern and importance to our people. Wheat, of course, is a very important commodity. The prosperity and general conditions throughout the world are influenced to a large degree by the quantity of wheat there i6 available for food. We have a number of commissions operating in this country. We have what is known as the Grain Commission, appointed by this Government, and upon which great powers were conferred by Act of Parliament. Then a year ago we appointed the Wheat Board. We have also appointed a Board of Commerce. You would naturally expect a Board of Commerce to be concerned with the disposal of our wheat crop, if wheat raising is the most important industry we have in Canada. There is a direct connection between these three bodies. There is at times an overlapping. If there is not direct cooperation between them, the results at some point must be unfortunate, but instead of having co-operation between these three bodies I believe we have had a direct conflict during the past year, and the result has not been to the general advantage of the people of Canada. I have listened with interest to the remarks that have been made by those who have spoken on this resolution this afternoon. Some hon. members seem to be most concerned about the effect it will have upon a certain class of people. I do not wish to discuss the resolution from that angle at all. I wish to discuss it from

the standpoint of the direct influence it will have on the whole people of Canada. I have possibly observed it as closely from one angle from the fact that I myself have felt its influence to a considerable extent, and I have seen many other people of the province from which T come also suffering as a result of the negligence of those in whom control has been vested. The boards referred to, to safeguard their interests, it will be conceded that a people that exports its raw materials rather than converting them into the finished product is bound to be a poor people, and that under such a policy they do not obtain the best results from the natural resources of their country. The manufactured article through the application of skill and labour ie very much enhanced in value over the raw material, but strange to say, notwithstanding the hundreds of millions of dollars we have expended on railway facilities,steamship lines, and ocean transports, we are working in this matter on an absolute reversal of the old policy that manufacturing the raw material into the finished product is of benefit to the people where the operation is performed.
What condition of affairs do we find as regards the transportation rates on wheat when it is manufactured into the finished product in Canada? I know it will be pointed out that this is a matter over which the Wheat Board have absolutely no. control. We have not followed the policy that has been in vogue in Australia, where flour has been given a preference over wheat in railway rates. In Canada the ocean transportation rates on wheat and flour to Great Britain has been increased fourfold since 1914. Whereas at that time there was an excess of about 7 cents per 100 ' pounds in the rate on flour over wheat, to-day there is an excess of 25 cents per 100 pounds, or about 15 cents per bushel. Consequently, I can understand the difficulties that many millers have been up against. The claim has been advanced that to compel the millers to pay $2 a barrel before they can get a license to export flour is an interference with the old natural conditions under which we have been working for so many years. War .conditions are entirely different from peace conditions, we all hoped whSn the war was over that we would gradually get away from war conditions, and as the years pass very substantial arguments are necessary to justify Government legislation controlling the operations of the people. In lines of commerce I have always believed that it does not come within the province of a Government to do for the people what the
JUNE 24, mo
people are quite competent to do for themselves. I do not think it is wise or in the interests of the people themselves to have nursing legislation under normal conditions.
I think the sooner the people are thrown upon their own resources in such matters in every respect the better it will be for all concerned.
I wrant to point out that one of the effects of the operation of the Wheat Board during the past year, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, is1 that the live stock industry of that province by reason of the regulations of this board and of the other two I have mentioned, have received a setback that it will not overcome for many years, and to-day the outlook is anything but promising in that province. In the early fall of last year we found this unusual condition:	The markets of the province were
congested and crowded with live stock that ought to have been kept for breeding purposes, hut which was put on the market because the farmers were discouraged and resented very much indeed interference with their legitimate business. I say here and now that there was no one thing that occupied the attention of the farmers at the last provincial election in Ontario and helped to unite them to such an extent as the operations of some of these boards, and you see what the result was. The byproducts of wheat are the basic articles upon which the live stock and dairying industries of this country must depend more than upon anything else. I do not wish it to he inferred that it is necessary for us to enact legislation that will debar the farmer in the West, for instance, from getting the highest passible price he can for his wheat; far from it. I believe that if we remove these hampering restrictions we shall find the millers will be able to take care of their business in such a way that there will be much less wheat exported in the future but more flour. With the numerous elevators that have been built, and the transportation facilities we have, and the care that can be exercised to carry over the crop for months, and a year, if necessary, the old condition of affairs in this country has entirely changed and we are now able to regulate the market by reason of the fact that we have control of this elevator system. So far as Ontario is concerned, I may say that there is considerable wheat grown in that province. There will be more wheat grown there this year than has been grown for a great many years owing to the changed conditions to which I have
referred, the dairying industry having received a setback by reason of the operations of the several boards referred to. What did you find during the war years? The price of by-products of wheat had been fixed by the Food Controller at a sum nearly one-half less than that fixed by this Wheat Board. There was a spread of five dollars between the prices of the two products, shorts and bran, whereas this board has fixed a spread of $10 between the two, with the result that people have not been able to buy the by-product of wheat which was formerly used in the feeding of pigs.
I may say, in passing, that shorts to-day is simply bran ground fine but is put upon the market as shorts and sold at the higher price. There is another phase of this situation which I shall briefly touch upon. The Government of Canada own and operate terminal elevators at the head of the Great Lakes and in other parts of the country, and at one of these elevators, over and above the cost of operating, there was a profit of nearly $1,500,000 during the past four years. The by-product in recleaning after the shipment of the grain, remains in these elevators. The dirt is cleaned out of it but it is utilized and sent broadcast all over this country, and I have been unable to find from the audit, which it is admitted has been made, but which is not available, how this stuff has been disposed of. I do know, however, and I have so stated on a number of occasions, that the mill feed that has been disposed of to the farmers during the past three years and particularly during the past year-yes, and more particularly during the past winter since the legislation of last session was enacted-has been bad, and the Government have made no effort to enforce the legislation referred to-It has remained a dead letter on the Statutes of Canada, and the millers have continued to adulterate the by-products of wheat and have continued to send this poison broadcast through the country, ias they have been doing for many years. The price of bran, we were informed was to be $45 a ton and shorts $55 a ton, a spread of $10 between the two. Now, what have the farmers of Ontario been paying for their bran during the past two months? Seventy dollars a ton has been paid for it, and only a limited supply available; and what they do get is an adulterated article with a large weed seed content that poisons the stock they have to feed. Is there any wonder that there is resentment on the part of) the people who are subjected to treatment

of that kind? We are told that the price paid by -the board for this wheat has been $2.10; that has not been the case in Ontario, where the price paid was $1.95. It is true that participation certificates were issued. The millers in many instances have been and are endeavouring to make the farmers believe that they are not'likely to receive much for these certificates and have been buying up that script at a very low rate and holding it because they know about what will happen. Is it fair that any one should be taken advantage of in that respect because legislation of this kind has been deemed necessary and been put into effect? We are told that it is to protect the farmers. I do not believe that it will protect the farmers of the country; on the contrary, in my opinion, it will result in a great injury to them, and I hope the Government will be wise enough, no matter what condition may develop, to determine, even if this Bill becomes law, not to put i it into effect. What is the situation in the old land, in free trade England? You have heard a great deal about the free trade policy which obtains in that country. How does it work out in relation to Canada? We have given Britain a preference in the Canadian market for many years, and you have heard no one complaining very much in that regard. But what treatment has Canada received in the British market? What is the policy of Great Britain with regard to Canada to-day, so far as our agricultural products are concerned? It has been pointed out that Britain has controlled the price of wheat and wheat products and bread in that country and that they supplement the price at which the bread is .sold to the consumers in order to make up the difference in respect of what they have to pay in this country for the grain. Britain had control of shipping during the war and made it absolutely impossible for any one else to compete with her. Our markets are in Great Britain, and as regards wheat and, as the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don (Mr. Robb) pointed out, dairy products, they purchased the dairy products of New Zealand at a very low price and then came over here; and, as they were the only market available to us, we had to sell at the price which they fixed. What was the result? The cheese-making industry in the Dominion of Canada received a setback from which it will not recover for many years. The control was removed, and you find an immediate advance of about seven to eight cents a pound in the price of this 
commodity, and to-day this industry ds working on the old basis and some of the old factories are being reopened and are endeavouring to get back to normal conditions again. I was dealing with wheat, and I was about to say that the preference of 25 cents per hundred pounds, or a difference of about 15 cents per bushel on wheat over flour, enables the Old Country farmer to obtain his mill feeds to advantage. They are bound to have these feeds because they intend to develop their agricultural industry and it is necessary that they should have these by-products. At the same time, by a stroke of policy, they placed an embargo on iCanadian cattle going into that country. So that their farmers are protected along both lines, by the embargo which they placed ^ on our cattle and the preference which is given to wheat over flour, making it absolutely impossible for the miller in this country to compete with the miller in Great Britain. And this is free trade England! If you can show me any country that is further from free trade in its policy than England I should like to know where it is. Free trade England! Well, if ever there was a protective^ country on the face of the earth it is what is termed free trade England, and I have given you two illustrations in support of this statement. Britain is competent to take care of herself and has demonstrated this fact in the past. They will still be able to continue to do so after having defeated their enemies on the battlefields. I believe they will succeed along commercial lines as well as they have along other lines. For that reason I say it is necessary for us to look after our own interests and to look after them as carefully as possible. I must protest against placing any further power in the hands of these irresponsible bodies which do for us business that our people are able to do for themselves. I think I cannot make myself any clearer than I have already done in regard to my views upon this question. I appreciate the fact that this is simply enabling legislation and that it may never go into effect. There may be something beneath the surface in connection with the work of last year that I have not been able to size up which may have justified the Government in doing what they propose and I may be better satisfied when I see the report of the operations of the Wheat Board for the year. But in so far as I have observed their operations I must say that I protest as strenuously as I can against going it blind any longer. I want

to know what has been done by the Board and where we stand with them,
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the remarks that were offered by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) in support of this resolution, he is very much concerned in regard to the marketing of our wheat, and suggests that because the European countries are pooling their interests for buying purposes we on this side of the ocean must do likewise and appoint a board to do business wholesale. But this is but one more example of the policy of this Government against which we have protested! on many occasions, and especially at the beginning of this session, when we found in the Speech from the Throne that the Government intended putting before this House measures which more nearly concern European affairs than our own domestic affairs.
It is strange that this resolution is brought down in the dying days of the session. It is also strange that it does not seem to meet with the same approval of the followers of the Government as did other measures which have been brought down dbring this session. If I am well informed, certain of the Government supporters are absolutely opposed to this resolution going through, and I am advised that even the Government itself is divided on the matter. Recently when in Montreal over the week end a -gentleman, very friendly to the Government, asked me to- see if it would not be possible to defeat this resolution. But not only are friends of the Government opposed to this measure-even [DOT] Government officials charged with looking after our trade with foreign countries have expressed themselves against the continuation of the Wheat Board, and as an example of the opinions expressed I need only quote some remarks made at Hamilton last month by Mr. Lloyd Harris:
Mr. Harris alluded to the Board of Commerce being appointed to check profiteering, and stated that while it was at this duty, the Wheat Board was profiteering to "beat the band." If he were allowed to control the entire steel output of Canada he could make all kinds of money, and the situation regarding wheat was like this. The board made wheat prices that were a crime.
When we see men like Mr. Lloyd Harris, who was closely associated with the Government in looking after our trade interests in England1 and in the United States, expressing himself in this vigorous fashion, how can either the followers of the Government or members on this side of the House approve of the resolution?
It is significant that within the last two days two resolutions of a similar nature have been submitted for our approval. A few days ago the Government submitted a scheme to assist shipbuilding-a scheme which in my opinion is simply a form of class legislation-and, as was to be expected, we on this side of the House opposed it. During war time and immediately thereafter no doubt this Wheat Board served a necessary and useful purpose, but now 'that we are reverting to peace conditions I submit that it is merely class legislation which we should oppose to the best of our ability.	'
It is provided in this resolution that power be given to the Governor in Council -that is to say, to members of the Government-to themselves decide when they should use the powers proposed to be given by this measure. This is once more putting into the hands of the Government power to make Orders in Council rules such as those to which we have so unwillingly submitted during the last six years. It will be remembered that in 1914, at the outbreak of war, we gave to the Government of the day an unlimited power to transact any kind of business by means of Orders in Council; and every one knows that that power has been abused. Even after the war was over the Government saw fit to continue the administration of our national affairs by Order in Council, instead of by proper constitutional methods-that is to say, by proper parliamentary procedure. The time has come when those war-time methods should cease, and there is no- reason why this resolution should be adopted by this House. But there is a further reason why this resolution should not be concurred in. As hon. members have stated in the course of this debate, the Grain Act contains ample power to do the very things which are sought to foe accomplished by this resolution. And certainly it is not a wise policy to have duplicate legislation to accomplish the same purpose.
I want to draw the -attention of this House to what has transpired during this debate-I refer to -the statement made by the hon. member for Chabeauguay-Hunting-don (Mr. Robb). When speaking this afternoon the hon. member said that a member of the Wheat Board had declared in

a public speech that certain members of the Government had put through some transactions which were not absolutely proper. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who should know something about the matter, gave a positive denial of the statement,-and I may say that it is the first time that any such denial has been given to the House and to the country. I have great respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I .submit that hon. members, although they accept his explanation, will not be satisfied unless before the end of this debate he gives us a full account of the transactions referred to. It seems to me that when an hon. member raises a question in this House in connection with such an important matter, it is not sufficient for a minister of the Crown to simply say, "Well, there is no truth in it." The Canadian people want more than that; they want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I am afraid that if this resolution goes through it will bring about just the very condition we do not want in this country,- a continuation of the high cost of living. The people are sick and tired of war-time control, and Orders in Council, and legislation that no other people in any civilized country would submit to. The feeling is general throughout the country that we should revert to peace conditions. Therefore I intend to vote against this resolution.
. Mr. W. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.): I rise, Mr. Speaker, simply to call the attention of the minister to certain local conditions that arose in the western provinces last year during the control of the Wheat Board. I think I can safely say that never perhaps in the history of the West were marketing conditions so unsatisfactory as during last year. I would not say that those conditions were entirely due to the action of the Wheat Board, but certainly the conditions were worse for those who had grain to market than they had ever been before. It was passing strange that .although the Government pretended to control wheat only, that oats were marketable at all seasons of the year, both while the grain was being harvested and during the winter, although there was no market for wheat. Grain dealers did not seem to be very anxious to handle the wheat. I suppose perhaps because the price was fixed, or for some other reason1.
One thing I want particularly to point out is the unsatisfactory manner in which Mr. Casgrain.
the operations of the board resulted to some wheat producers. Those who were fortunate enough to sell their grain early in the year and get their money shared to the same extent in the benefits as did those growers who had to carry their grain over and bear the loss of wastage and shrinkage and interest on moneys borrowed to meet their obligations;-in effect those who were unable to find an early market for their grain had to help pay for the storage of the wheat of the other more fortunate growers. That Was a hardship to a great many, and I may say that in the province of Alberta, particularly in the northern part, a very small proportion of the wheat crop was sold last season; even up to the time I left in February there appeared to be no market for wheat. The local elevators claimed that it was on account of the wheat control; others blamed it on lack of railway transportation. However, it was noticeable that while the market was free for oats,none of the dealers were buying wheat during the winter months. The man who was fortunate enough to dispose of his wheat got his money and was able to use it, while the man who was carrying his wheat over had to borrow money and pay interest upon it as well as pay storage charges. To my mind there is only one good reason why the Government should interfere at all in the grain business. I do not believe in the control of anything. The Liberal platform stands for free trade in foodstuffs; this is one of the most essential foodstuffs and it should be free; the market should be open,-unless, as was pointed out by an hon. member today, the financial institutions of the country are not prepared to assist in moving the grain: of course, if that is the case the Government is justified in giving assistance by way of fixing .a price to ensure that the moneyed men of the country will help to move the grain out.
With regard to the participation coupons that were issued, the minister is right in saying that many producers did not have much confidence in them and perhaps incurred some losses by disposing of them too soon. But is worthy of note that throughout last year the prices on the other side of the international line were a great deal higher than the prices received by producers in our western provinces. I have a clipping which I took to-day from a local paper containing the latest report that I could find on grain. I find that No. I Northern was quoted in Minneapolis at from $2.90 to $3 and in Edmonton on the

same day at $1.91, or about one dollar less than the Minneapolis price. The producers in that district believe that the difference between the Minneapolis price and the price which they are receiving is largely accounted for by the expense of keeping up this control and paying for storages in connection with carrying the grain over. The following resolution, adopted at the annual convention of the Alberta United Farmers, expresses fairly well the opinion held by the grain growers of Alberta last year, and I do not think they have since changed their opinion:
Whereas the fixing of the price of wheat was a war measure for the steadying of the market and the keeping down of the High Cost of Living.
Wrhereas, while we view with a large measure of concern the restoration of an open market that will make speculating possible in the handling of our chief food product, yet we realize that the continuation of a fixed price on wheat might unduly bear on the consumer, and
Whereas we, as producers, are willing that the prices of our products be governed by the law of supply and demand, but protest against scalpers and speculators taking toll which frequently amounts to more than the profits of the producer,
Therefore be it resolved that we. the TJ. F. A., in convention assembled, demand that legislation be passed confining the dealing in all grains whether on Grain Exchanges or elsewhere, to cash grain and sales for actual future delivery of grain and grain products.
That convention was a representative gathering of the grain growers of Alberta; and here they express the view that this commodity should be dealt with in the open markei and be ruled by the law of supply and demand. I do not think that this control makes the wheat any cheaper to the consumer; if it did, there would be some argument in favour of it. Prices are high; but it is evidently the opinion of the Alberta farmers that they do not want to look to the Government for the fixing of a high price at the expense of the consuming population. As I say, there is only one circumstance which could justify the Government in taking action of this kind and in interfering in any way with the price or marketing of wheat, and that is if the financial institutions of the country will not furnish the money to move the crop.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek): The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) laid great stress on the assertion that this undertaking, involving such tremendous financial responsibilities, was being placed in the hands of three men. Had the hon. member wished to be absolutely fair he would have quoted the paragraph 263
of the resolution upon which he based this assertion. But while the echo of his voice could still be heard he suggested that if any action of this kind was taken the matter should be placed in the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners,-which in itself is composed of three men. But his assertion that the matter was to be placed in the hands of three men is absolutely incorrect. The clause reads thus:
That the Board may from time to time appoint an executive committee of not less than three of its members.
Now, this is a board of twelve men. If. they see fit they may conduct the business as a body of twelve men or they may delegate it to a body of not less than three. In other words, the business may be carried on by three, five, six, eight or ten members of the board, or by the full board if that is deemed advisable. Yet the hon. member states that he would rather have the matter placed in the hands of a board composed only of three men,-a board whose personnel is not capable of being augmented in any way.
This argument is not new; it was presented in a particular section of the western press long ago. As I stated in this House some time ago, there is a section of the press that is controlled by a certain firm doing a grain business in Western Canada, which firm has been asking that this matter be placed in the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners. So far as I know, that is the only firm, including some of its subsidiary companies, doing business of any .consequence on the Grain Exchange that has tasked for this. If you ask the grain exchanges as a body 'whether they wish to be placed in the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners or in the hands of the Canada Wheat Board, if they are going to be placed in the hands of either one, I am sure they would have no hesitation whatever in saying that they would have it placed in the hands of the latter, and the farmere' organizations would fully agree with them. We are perfectly satisfied, and we have been satisfied-although the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don (Mr. Robb) stated that the farmers of Western'Canada were not satisfied-with the method that had been adopted in handling the grain. I should have been pleased had the hon. gentleman furnished some proof in support of his statement. If it is not satisfactory to them, why are they, as a body, from one end of the country to the other, askig that his enabling power be given to



the Government at this time? At their convention they went further; they asked not only enabling legislation, but that the Government continue'the Wheat Board for .another year. The Canadian Council of Agriculture passed a similar resolution, and recently, through their executive they have again stated that as long as there is governmental control of buying in European markets, we must have governmental control in Canada in regard to disposing of our wheat.
Great emphasis was laid on the fact that most neutral countries were now buying individually, and that in some cases individuals were doing the business within those countries. That may he quite true, but the quantity of wheat that neutrals buy from us is very small. A year ago Great Britain took delivery of 91 per cent of the exportable wheat and 60 per cent of the quantity of flour we exported to the European market. That shows that Great Britain is still, as she .always has been, one of our largest buyers of wheat; and, just so long as Great Britain is .controlling the purchase of wheat by buying through governmental agencies, we must have Government control in Canada as regards selling our wheat, in order to protect, not only the producer, but, as I have stated in this House before, the consumer. As I think I can show the House a little later on, the consumer is just as vitally interested as the producer in this wheat business being controlled in a proper manner. Great Britain, of course, .may change her method of buying, but this legislation, though we pass it, does not necessarily come into force. While I am on that point, I should like to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that I hope, if he is going to .carry out this legislation at all-and I think he should do so-he should make the announcement at no distant date, so that we may all know, and may not get get into the same position as we were in last year. Hon. members will remember that when I was asked on the floor of the House in the first session of 1919, whether I was in favour of the Government fixing the price of wheat, I, without any hesitation whatever, .answered in the affirmative. I said that to protect the consumer as well as the producer, it would be necessary for the Government to do that. Although the Government were, as we know, strongly urged by individuals, by delegations, by deputations of members of the House, to take charge of the wheat, they absolutely refused; they made it possible for the Grain Exchange to open, and what
	t
was the result? The result was that inside a very few days wheat had advanced around 40 cents a bushel although there was practically no wheat with which to do business. And notwithstanding this lack of wheat the advance in .price had its effect on the price of flour and the consumer had to pay. The Government were advised as forcibly and strongly as we possibly could as to what they might expect, but there were at Ottawa other interests, as there are here to-day and have been here for the better part of two months trying to bring their influence to bear upon the Government to make it possible for the Grain Exchange to do a wide-open business again. If the Government have the welfare of the consumer and producer at heart, they will continue the Wheat Board; otherwise, they will have. a duplication of what happened last year on account of the few days the Grain Exchange was thrown open.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) intimated that even should there be a European combination, individual dealers could handle it just as well as the Government. That is a most ridiculous argument. I have been, doing business in grain for a number of years, and I know, and anyone who knows anything about the grain business knows, that you have to do business and get your money through the banks. No firm in the grain business has sufficient capital to carry it on, because the lai'ge1 amount of money involved is required for only a few short months. When you are doing business through the banks and you get to the limit of your line of credit., where are you at, supposing you cannot, get a market for your stuff? To use a popular expression, you are up against, it,, and you may suffer serious losses. There is no comparison between a group of individuals doing business separately .and a board that has the backing of the country behind it, especially when its 'operation is not costing, and is not likely to cost, the country one cent. An argument was made here to-day that it. would be liable to cost consumers up to about forty cents a bushel. No one producing grain wants the consumer to take one cent of risk. We are asking only that the business stand absolutely on its own bottom, so to speak; let it take care of the charges, and if there be any charges to be paid, there is on hand to the credit of the Wheat Board quite sufficient to take care of all those charges and a great deal more. We do not need to worry at all about the finances of the country or the exchequer;

the charges will most certainly be taken care of. So long as European conditions continue as they are to-day, the Government must take a hand in the business.
We have been told that this is paternalism. In what way is it paternalism? We have been told that we are asking for protection. I have stated in this House more than once that we never asked for protection; never asked for a fixed price to the producers. We never asked for that at all; all that we are asking for now is: Since you have forced it on us; since you have disorganized conditions and -since the price was fixed for one purpose or two purposes at the utmost, you must continue this so long as conditions remain as they are in European countries. I have been told by the very best authority from whom it was possible to get the information that the above two reasons were why the Government took control and fixed the prices. I was told this when I was in the Old Country a year ago last January by one of the members of the Wheat Executive of England. I asked him the question straight if this was not done for the purpose oi keeping the price down and to control distribution, and he unhesitatingly answered it was. When that question was asked, the conversation went a little further.
A well-known Canadian grain man who happened to be there at that time made the statement that if the Government had not taken control the price of wheat would have gone to $7 or $8 a bushel. The gentleman who said that control was taken for these two purposes said he did not think it would have gone that high, but he was convinced it would have gone to at least $5 a bushel. Does that look as though the producer was being benefited at the expense of the consumer, as has been stated here to-day? The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) answered that argument very fully and he did not have to go to the Old Country to do so. His statements are absolutely right, although some hon. gentlemen who are interested in having open markets are trying to make it appear otherwise. So far as we are concerned we have the interests of the consumer in mind just as much as the interests of the producer: An hon. member for one of the Torontos said this evening he would even gto further and have nationalization for all time to come. I am not prepared to say I would go that far, but I would go so far as to say that gambling in food stuffs must be stopped. If there is only one way in which it can be stopped, and if that is by the 263i
nationalization and control of food products, I am prepared right here to say that under such necessity I would go that far. One of the big curses of this country is the gambling in food products, and if nationalization is necessary to stop the practice the Government would be fully justified in taking that course in the interests of the people. Gambling in food stuffs has to be stopped, and the producers themselves may have to take a hand in the work of stopping it. As far as wheat products are concerned, if the disposition that has been shown here to-day against what the Government has been doing and proposes to do continues, it is only a matter of time until the producers of wheat will take a hand and say whether gambling shall be permitted in these products or not. If this ever-increasing army of those who do absolutely nothing but gamble in food products is going to keep up, drastic measures may have to be taken, and if others than the producers will not take the necessary measures, the producers themselves may step in and take a hand in the business.
Another argument that was used was that the farmer was being safeguarded in such a way that he was taking absolutely no risk. I would like to know in what respect the farmer is being saved from taking any risks. He is in the same position that he has always been in, he is at the mercy of the world's market. And that is all he asks for; all he wants is the price that the world's market says it is prepared to pay for his product. He asks for no protection whatever, in any shape or form.
Another matter to which this Government must give seri'ous consideration is transportation facilities. At the present time the prospects in Western Canada are as rosy as possible for them to be, and if the crops should turn out only seventy-five per cent as good as they now promise, the transportation facilities of this country will be entirely inadequate to cope with the situation. With the present facilities we shall not be able to get out more than a fraction of the wheat before navigation closes. If you are going to allow our transportation facilities to be manipulated, there is going to be trouble, and the consumer is groing to pay for it, while the producer will gain nothing by it. We have had less than fifty-per-cent crops in the last two or three years, and even with those -crops there are still thousands and thousands of bushels in the granaries that have not yet been taken out. I had a telegram and a letter only a day or two ago deploring the conditions in

one particular district where they were not able to get out their wheat for lack of transportation facilities. What would conditions be like if we had seventy-five or eighty-per-cent crops all over the western country? The Government must give consideration, and very earnest consideration, to this question of transportation.
Another argument that has been used is that the United '.States have opened their markets. True, they have to a certain extent, but they have still the power, as was stated here to-day, to alter that condition, and they are taking very good care to hold on to that power. One hon. gentleman on this side of the House-I believe it was the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) -complained to-day that the western farmers were getting such a price for their grain that they were practically mining their farms. That is an old argument that we have heard over and over again for years and years. The hon. gentleman need not worry about the western farmers mining their land. I think the results this year will show that the land is very far from being mined, and some of the longest-farmed land will produce just as big a crop this year as it ever did. So the hon. gentleman need not have any worry on that score.
I believe it was my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) who spoke of the tremendous amount of profits and the enormous charges that the board had permitted the elevators to make. Is it not a most significant thing that if these elevator companies are making such huge profits as the hon. gentleman represents, they should have had their representatives here for the last six weeks or two months in an endeavour to get de-control? It was a most absurd statement for the hon. member to make. He was absolutely wide of the mark also in his figures with regard to the cost of the construction of elevators. I do not know whether he is an elevator operator or owner, but certainly he knows nothing whatever about the cost of elevators either to-day or years ago. He stated that the average elevator was worth about $6,000, and that you could build elevators to-day for $10,000. I want to say -and I know whereof I speak, because we have been building elevators-that if the hon. gentleman will undertake to build a modem, up-to-date elevator for $10,000 or $12,000 or even $15,000, he can get contracts for all the elevators he can build in Western Canada in the next six months. You cannot build a 30,000-bushel modern up-to-date elevator for less than' $16,000, let alone

$10,000. We have been building elevators since 1911; we have built 86 in one season, and we have yet to get our average cost below $8,000 per elevator even when material was at its very lowest cost. I think it is very unfair for the hon. gentleman to try and bolster up his argument with a statement of that kind.


James Alexander Robb: Did the hon. gentleman say
an elevator with a capacity of 30,000 bushels?


Mr. MAHARG:: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: That is what I said, that they would run from $6,000 to $10,000. My hon. friend has said $8,000.


John Archibald Maharg: 'I say that you cannot build one of those elevators to-day for $10,000 or $15,000; you cannot do it for less than $16,000. We are building elevators to-day and we know exactly what they cost to build. My hon. friend gave these figures, I have no doubt, to bolster up his argument that the amount allowed to elevators was exorbitant. He did not tell the House what has to be taken care of for the 5} cents a bushel that the elevators are getting. It was only a few years ago that the Board of Grain Commissioners asked all the elevator companies in the West to submit to them the average cost of putting the grain through their houses at initial points. These figures were submitted, and I want to inform the hon. gentleman that they showed that the cost in some instances of putting the grain through was about 4 cents a bushel.
They run all the way from a cent and three quarters to four cents a bushel varying largely according to the amount of their turnover. That is not the only charge that has to be taken care of. There is the commission charge, which is one cent a bushel. The hon. gentleman stated that all carrying charges1 and insurance weie paid by the board. True, the carrying charges are paid [DOT]by the board to a certain extent, but in the first place the elevator operator has to provide fifteen days free storage, and he has to insure the grain and take care of it; and when you come to consider the actual direct charges, apart from the indirect charges which he has to' face, the five and a half cents a bushel which the hon. gentleman mentioned practically disappears.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member, if II understand him, says that the elevator, for the fivq and a half cents, or six cents, or whatever it is, is compelled to insure the grain. Is it not a fact that, by regulation, the

Wheat Board pays all the carrying charges and insurance?


John Archibald Maharg: available at the present moment; it would make things easier for him. That is the point the hon. member was trying to emphasize; he was trying to show that while his neighbour across the line went off with his money in his pocket, he himself had to wait for six or eight months to get his own. I commend this point to the consideration *of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: The hoard has power
now to do what the hon. member advocates. The only difficulty I know of is in the way of machinery and security to the board. I am certain that the Government would have no Objection at all.


John Archibald Maharg: I am glad to hear my hon. friend give that explanation, and I will undertake to see what the board has to say. I appreciate the fact that there is some difficulty, but I honestly believe that the game is worth the candle, and it should not be a very difficult matter for the Government to go a little further. They have at present given the banks to understand, I presume, that they will not suffer financial loss at all, and I think it might be possible for them'to make an arrangement with the banks so that the individual who has his participation certificate could deal through the bank and get a further advance on it. This would be a tremendous relief to the people of the West.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that so far as we are concerned we do not look for anything in the nature of paternalism -absolutely not. We do not want the Government or the country to take one particle of risk in the" handling of this grain. We are prepared to pay our way, whatever it may cost; and if the Government can see their way clar to continue these operations next grain season, if conditions are such that they think it is necessary -and I think they are-they will be well advised to place this matter in the hands of a board similar to that which has been handling the business during the past year. We have a board of men representing all interests, and I may say that the millers are equally represented on the board and so are the transportation and other interests. They are all there, and they can get together and talk the whole thing over. It is an excellently well balanced board and I think the Government would be wise to continue a similar, if not the same, board that we have at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Boi-vin in the Chair.

Resolution reported, read the second .time and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 206 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Mr. GUTHRIE:: With the unanimous consent of the House, may I be permitted to move that the resolution standing in my name in the Votes and Proceedings to-day ^ be placed on the Order Paper in order that it may be advanced to another stage. This resolution only deals with two sections of the Franchise Act fixing salaries and remuneration of officers. It would save considerable delay to. proceed with it now.
Motion agreed to and House went info committee on the following resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That It is expedient to provide in the proposed Act respecting- the election of Members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise (Bill 12) now before the House that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be paid for his services the sum of Two Thousand dollars per annum In addition to any salary or emolument which he receives as Parliamentary Counsel; that he shall also be paid his reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from Ottawa on the business of his office; that such sums and expenses shall he paid by cheque of the Auditor General out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada; that the fe*es, allowances land disbursements of election officers according as the same shall be fixed by a tariff to be made by the Governor General in Council upon the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer shall be paid by Warrant of the Governor General and shall be distributed by such person or persons as the Governor General in Council may direct to the several officers and persons entitled thereto under the provisions of the said proposed Act, which distribution the person or persons so distributing shall report to the Governor General through the Secretary of State.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first part of this resolution, I take it, refers to section 19 of the Act and the second part to some amendments which were moved in the committee the other day?


Hugh Guthrie: The second part refers to section 79, which I propose to amend. I think the discussion can take place when we are considering the sections in the committee.


Mr. FIELDING:: Is the procedure respecting payments of this kind unusual? I 'would like to know if it is in keeping with some other Act, or if it is something original, and, if original, why?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that there is anything unusual about it. The resolution itself was drafted toy the Parliamentary Counsel and I assume it is in proper form. However, tooth these sections, 19 and 79, will, I assume, toe discussed in full when the sections are dealt with in the committee. All I ask at present is to -expedite matters and to get the resolution through its preliminary stage in order that the House may deal with it more fully.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be very glad to agree to that with the hope, however, that my hon. friend is not going to try to rush it through the various stages, but that we shall have time to review the matter at every stage.
Resolution reported, read the first time and concurred in.


DEMOBILIZATION APPROPRIATION ACT, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance), with the unanimous consent of the House, moved that the resolution standing in his name on page one of the Appendix to Votes and Proceedings No. 79, and providing that the raising toy loans of any sums which may have been raised in excess of the amount authorized toy the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919, shall be deemed to have been truly authorized thereby, be placed upon the Order Paper for the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton, who stated that the assent of His Excellency the Governor General had been obtained, it was resolved that the House go into committee to-morrow on the above resolution.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen for the third reading of Bill No. 14 to amend the Indian Act:
Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was unavoidably absent last evening when this Bill was considered. I was a member of the committee appointed to consider it and hear the evidence. I am opposed to the Bill. I regret very much that that Bill was discussed
and carried into - committee while I was away. I want to read the debate which took place yesterday. I was really the member on this side of the House who
9 p.m. had been charged to study the Bill and lepresent the Opposition in the committee, and I ask that the third reading be postponed until to-morrow so that I may read the debate.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite prepared to withdraw my motion particularly as I be-believe that when the hon. member reads the debate his opposition will cease.
Motion withdrawn.


Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX (Maisonneuve):: As I shall toe away to-morrow, and I was not in the House yesterday, I wish to state, on behalf of the Indians of the Abenakis reserve, that I am opposed to the Bill. The Indians of that reserve, through their missionary and the bishop of the diocese, have sent letters and petitions, and the latter are signed by the vast majority, if not all, of the Indians in that very large reserve. They fear that if the Bill becomes law they, will lose whatever privileges they enjoy. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Scott, the very able Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, and although he has reassured me as regards the future of that reserve, still I feel that I must voice the sentiments expressed by the bishop of the diocese, the missionary of the reserve, and the chief and his followers. They are well satisfied to remain as they are, being prosperous under the present state of affairs.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. GOVERNMENT AID TO SHIPBUILDING.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 199 to assist shipbuilding be read the second time:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance would give us some explanation about this Bill before moving its second reading. A couple of nights ago we had a rather protracted debate upon the resolution preceding this Bill, and we received very little enlightenment on the question at issue. I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is not in the House so that I might have an opportunity of specifically calling

his attention ito the fact that we are entering upon fresh expenditure which was not forecasted in the Speech from the Throne, nor was it mentioned at any stage during the session when inquiry was made as to the legislation to be brought down.
The extraordinary condition is that this Parliament is called upon to assume liability to the extent of some $30,000,000, without at this stage being informed for whom we are assuming that obligation. There have been occasions in our history when the Government undertook to help industries. We undertook to help the steel industry at the Soo in Ontario, and the steel and iron industry in Nova iScotia. But then we were dealing with substantial institutions located in this country, and particularly so far as the Nova Scotia Steel Company and the Dominion Steel Company were concerned, they 'being corporations with millions of capital invested in the Dominion, we were dealing with something that naturally was in the best interests of the Dominion. To-day we sfre called upon to spend money, not by way of a certain payment for every ton of steel of iron produced, nor for every ton of shipping launched-nothing of the kind. That would be something substantial, something that we could understand and to some extent handle. But what is presented to us today is a proposition that some man whom we do not know may come along and make a contract with somebody else whom we do not know, and that after that is done we are to pledge the country's credit to the extent of some $30,000,000 in order to help the first unkonwn man in his contract with the second unknown man. We have not a farthing's worth of security for our money.
We were informed by the Minister of Finance in the early stages of the discussion that he was to obtain security upon the ships to fye built. Well, it is only at certain stages of its growth that any reasonable security can be taken upon a ship. At the commencement sne is only a heap of iron, steel and wood-the material assembled for her construction, which material is certainly not a very valid security for such a large sum of money as we are being called upon to give by this Bill. We are told that the parties who may negotiate with the Government are not natives of this country, nor are they British subjects; consequently they are incapable of holding this class of property. Now, how can a foreigner give security in property which he cannot own? I was hoping thait we would be 	.
informed that some other kind of security would be given. I would imagine that the Minister of Finance, if he has any respect for the judgment of hon. members, would tell us that he had some kind of security before he would ask (this House to pledge the credit of the country to the extent of $30,000,000.
We are told by hon. ministers, when the question of money comes up, that we have to forego public works and extensions of our railway lines-extensions which are absolutely necessary to look after the carrying trade of the country and its proper development-that there is no money available, and thereupon we stop agitating. But the Minister of Finance comes before Parliament to-day and says ithat he has $30,000,000 to develop a foreign country. The Government have thirty millions of money, with which to build ships for foreign countries. This is a most extraordinary condition of things; surely such a proposal was never put before any Parliament. The returned soldiers are looking for a bounty; they are looking for assistance-in re-establishment, but the Government say: We have no money; the strain upon the country is too great; we cannot add one feather's weight to it. We say to the Government that we will stand by them. And after we have done so we are told in the dying days of the session that we have $30,000,000 with which to develop the shipping trade of some foreign country. Members of the Government may be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of this legislation to their own consciences and to their own supporters, but they certainly have not offered any satisfactory explanation to this House. As a private member of the House and as representative of a certain class bf the people I protest against this transaction. It is absolutely unbusinesslike; it stands without precedent in any Government that ever existed in this country, either provincial or Dominion. I call upon hon. members of good common sense who realize that they are here as the guardians and trustees of the interests and rights of the people to find out why we are asked, to give $30,000,000 to somebody, we know not whom. Why should we say to anybody, whether he is a foreigner or not : "If you will get a contract with some one who is willing to buil-d a ship in this country we will give you the money; we will exact no security of any kind; you will own the ship and take it away; we will give you five years to pay for it. At the end of that five years the Lord knows where the ship

will be,, but go your way rejoicing and sin no more, lest worse may happen." I do not see how a worse business transaction could be foisted on the country. Where did the Minister of Finance get this fantastic motion? As chairman of the Railway Commission he must have had to deal with hard-headed business men; he must have had to arrive at businesslike decisions. I would not expect his training there to give him any ideas of this kind,	,
The Bill is prepared with a great deal of ingenuity. The ordinary man who reads it would think that we get a cash payment of fifty per cent of the price of the ship; at all events he would think that we were getting a twenty-five per cent cash payment before the work was started. But the only cash payment mentioned is ten per cent. Then there is another ten per cent in some kind of security, so that the payment is brought up to twenty per cent, half of it in cash. We have a right to assume that the ten per cent in respect of which cash is not mentioned will be paid in some kind of security, and not in cash, but it is not stated what that security is to be. Then, the other twenty-five per cent which must be paid within nine months of the date of the contract is to be arranged-not paid- to the satisfaction of the man who is going to build the ship. After all this is arranged we have the humiliating spectacle of a foreigner coming into this country and having his note endorsed by The King of Great Britain and Ireland. With that endorsement he goes into the bank and gets the money. Never in any part of the Empire so far as I know has power of this land been given to endorse notes in the name of The King; it is being done here for the first time. I protest against all this. The Government have- no business to spend these enormous sums of money without any security or without any knowledge of what is really involved.
If any one in France, England, Belgium or elsewhere wants to build a ship, the Old Land is full of shipyards. If, on the other hand, he wants to come to this side of the water for his ship, there are shipyards along the St. Lawrence that will be glad to build it. In the port of Halifax there is a new shipbuilding concern which is building large ships, the same class of ships that are contemplated here. If a good business man wants to have a ship built, why does he not go to one of these concerns who are carrying on operations along business lines? Why should we be called upon to take the step that is now proposed?
Why, we have sixty-three or sixty-four ships of our own,-ships that were built at a cost of 375,000,000 or 380,000,000. If we have any business sense or business acumen we will try to get business for those ships. Are we sane when we are starting out to lend money without interest, without security, without profit or gain of any kind, to other men or to a series of concerns who are going to build ships and put them into trade against ourselves and cut down our profit on ships in which we have invested 375,000,000 or 380,000,000? That is the proposition simply put by myself who can put it only in a very poor, blunt way; but I think I can be understood. And if, as I hope, some business man in the House will put this proposition before Parliament in its true light, I shall have a right to be assured that business principles will govern the Government before they will give their final assent to this wildcat expenditure of money which we can ill afford to throw away, as it threatens to be thrown away.
Mr. THOMAS VIE!N (Lothbiniere): Mr. Speaker, I only regret I was unavoidably absent the other night when the resolution on which this Bill is founded came before the House for the first time, because I should have liked at that time to give to the House at least my views on this subject There is a misunderstanding or a failure to understand the real features of this proposition on the part of some hon. members, because otherwise the same criticism would surely not have been offered, or at least it would not have been offered in the same way.
In the first place, hon. gentlemen should fully realize that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is extremely important in regard to the development of this country, and that unless we assist it in some way or another at the present time, it is in great danger of disappearing. The Canadian shipbuilding industry was practically created during the waT. Before the war we had hardly more than a couple of shipyards which were turning out steel ships. The war has given to the shipbuilding industry in Canada a new impetus; and while it is very seldom since I have been a member of this House that I have had occasion to congratulate the Government, I must be frank on this question, and I think the Canadian Government should certainly be congratulated on the assistance they have given to the shipbuilding industry of Canada. This industry is not a mushroom industry in Can-

ada. We have in this country everything to uphold such an industry in normal conditions. We have the iron, the coal; we have now the shipyards, the experience, the skilled labour; and there is no reason why we should not he able to establish the Canadian shipbuilding industry on a sound and stable footing for the general benefit of Canada in the future.
But what are the conditions that prevail now? The Canadian Government have come to the end of their shipbuilding programme. They are now operating some sixty-odd ships, and they think they cannot place any further orders with Canadian shipyards. The Canadian Government being now withdrawn as a purchaser of ships built in Canadian shipyards, we have to turn our eyes to some foreign country to place orders with Canadian shipyards. What is the situation with which we are met? We are met with this situation, that notwithstanding the great need of foreign countries for steel ships, on account of financial conditions in the markets of the world, and particularly on account of the state of the exchange, they cannot possibly pay in cash for ships that they would be willing to order to be built in our Canadian shipyards. The fact is not that they are insolvent; it is not that they have not the assets to guarantee fully the builders or the Canadian Government against any possible loss; but it is that on account of the present state of exchange they would suffer a very heavy loss if they were to pay in actual cash. As a matter of fact, France, for instance, could not at present pay in Canadian dollars except by giving for every dollar 12 francs instead of 5 francs. I know whereof I speak when I say that the proposition before the House is a good and sound one. I am just back from Europe; I was in Paris during the months' of February, March and April, and there I met directors of various shipping companies who told me that they were willing to place orders for as much as 500,000 tons of steel shipping in Canadian shipyards, provided that we could arrange a credit for a certain period so as to permit the exchange to re-establish itself. I am free to say who these gentlemen are. They are directors of La Compagnie des messageries mari-times. They told me they had already in commission five ships that they were willing to mortgage in addition to the five ships that they were willing to order from Canadian shipyards. They told me that in addition to that, if the Canadian

Government were not satisfied with the guarantee of one ton of shipping already in commission in addition to each ton of ship which was to be built, they were ready to place in trust as additional security bonds of the French treasury. They told me that they had immovables, real estate, in the city of Paris to an amount of over 10,000,000 francs, and they were willing to mortgage that under a trust deed as collateral security. But one thing they could not do was to pay in dollars, or to sell such securities on the market at present on account of the loss which that would entail to them. Therefore, at present, the situation is this as regards the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It is a question of either letting the shipbuilding industry go by the board or assisting it in some way or another. Three plans have been proposed for the assistance of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. One was to assist them by a bonus of $15 or $20 on every ton of shipping for which orders were placed with Canadian shipyards. The Government flatly refused to entertain such a proposition. They considered that the 'Canadian exchequer was not in a position at present to be able to give that assistance by way of bonus or subsidy. Another plan suggested was to finance completely the orders placed by foreign purchasers with Canadian shipyards. Again, the Government flatly refused to accept such a proposition; they would not hear of it. Then came delegation after delegation, and my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and myself have a personal knowledge of the delegations that came and of the proposals that were laid before the Government. If I have any criticism to offer of the Government's present proposal it is that in my opinion it does not go far enough. That feature of the Bill which provides that 25 per cent of the purchase price must be paid in cash is to my mind a bad feature, but the Government insisted that they would not do anything better. It will simply mean that the French purchaser will have to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the ship and will lose 25 per cent. For instance, let us suppose the ship is going to cost $1,000,000. 25 per cent of that will . be $250,000. The purchaser has to pay that in cash. What is the state of the French currency at present?	It is such that the
French purchaser will have to give 12 francs to every dollar instead of 5 francs to the dollar under normal conditions. So that in French currency what the French pur-

chaser will have to pay will be 50 per cent of the cost of the ship. This extra 25 per cent will be lost to the purchaser through the difference of exchange.
I wish to 'draw the attention of the House for a moment to the great advantage that has accrued in the past to Canada by the creation of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. There are at present at least from 23,000 to 25,000 men working in Canadian shipyards. There is a shipyard very near ' the place where I live-the Davie Shipbuilding Company, at Lauzon. Though I have not a cent of interest, T am glad to say, in any shipyard in Canada, it seems to me that I would be unpatriotic if, knowing the conditions as I do, I failed to give the House the full information I have in my possession. The Davie Shipbuilding Company, which during the war built a number of ships for the British government and also on foreign account, has paid in wages alone over a period of over eighteen months between $60,000 and $70,000 a week; and this is not the biggest shipyard. The Halifax shipyard and the Vickers yard at Montreal have done much more. What will these workmen do if on account of the shortage of Canadian orders, or the impossibility of accepting orders on foreign account, the shipyards in 'Canada are forced to close down? These men will be thrown out of work, and moreover, the $50,000,000 invested in Canadian shipyards will be practically lost, or at all events it will be idle for a number of years until the exchange is re-established.
I have read with careful attention the criticism which has been offered of the Government's proposal by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who oppose it, and I have failed to find any serious objection to the legislation which has been introduced, but 'I have discovered, just as I discovered this evening in listening to the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), for whom I have the greatest respect, that there is some misapprehension on this question. For instance, did I not hear the hon. gentleman say that under this legislation the Government would throw away money without any guarantees at all? I think that the hon. gentleman misunderstood altogether the legislation which is now under consideration. There is nothing in the Bill to the effect that the Government is not going to take full guarantees so as to protect itself against any eventuality. First of all, the purchaser, the foreign company placing
orders with a Canadian shipyard, will have to put down 25 per cent of the amount. Secondly, the Government takes a mortgage to the amount of 50 per cent of the value of the ship. Thirdly, the Canadian shipbuilder will have to arrange otherwise for the other 25 per cent between the purchaser and himself. The hon. gentleman said: During the course of construction of the ship you have not a full guarantee for your money. That argument might apply if the Government were to pay to the shipbuilder 50 per cent of the amount in bulk before the keel was laid. But the Government surely-and this is one of the provisions of the Bill-are going to see to it that the money is well expended. The Bill provides that the Government will have their own inspectors, and will not pay the various progress estimates unless they are fully satisfied that the work is progressing to their satisfaction. The hon. gentleman also said that this proposal was for the development of a foreign country. I say that that is an unsound argument. Are we developing a foreign country or our own Canadian industries? With the assistance of the Government's endorsation of these notes, which will probably be negotiated on the American market, much money will be brought into Canada, and it will remain and be used in Canada for the development of our Canadian industries and for the benefit of Canada at large. -We have now rolling mills in the constituency of my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria. These rolling mills will turn the steel plates which will be used in those ships. The Canadian steel industry will provide not only the steel plates but the farmework, the forgings and the castings, and our other industries will provide the paint, the furniture, the woodwork, and everything else that goes into the construction of the ship.
I do not think that any of that money will go out of the country. It will all remain here, and will enable the Canadian shipbuilding industry to get on its feet during this abnormal financial period, and it will enable the industry when normal conditions are restored to fight its way and compete with the rest of the world. This is not only my opinion. I would refer hon. gentlemen to an article which was published in an American review. I refer to the Marine Review of July, 1920. The July number of this journal is now out and it contains a complete review of shipbuilding enterprise in Canada. It says:

The entrance of the government as a factor in the building of ships has been largely instrumental in developing the shipyards. Indeed, had such action not been taken, the dominion probably would not have anything like the building or shipping record it has to its credit. Soon after the outbreak of hostilities in 1914, the Canadian yards began to experience the benefits resulting from an increased demand for tonnage, but even though the marine department exerted its utmost influence to secure orders for Canadian yards, still the results were disappointing. It was not until the imperial munitions board, acting as the agent of the British government and sustained by ample credits from the dominion government, began to place orders for ships that the industry got on its feet. The value of the orders placed by the board aggregated $70,000,000. The industry received another strong impetus through the action of the Dominion Government in launching its shipbuilding program, which has resulted in the creation of a federally owned Canadian mercantile marine. To date, 6'0 cargo vessels, with a tonnage of approximately 360,000 deadweight, have been contracted for, involving another expenditure of approximately $70,000,000.
The fact that several steel shipbuilding yards had come into existence before the war is good evidence that the men behind them believed that there was a future for the industry. The comprehensive scale on whlc(h the [Halifax yards have been planned and are being laid out at this date by some of the prominent Canadian industrial leaders, is further proof of this. On the Atlantic coast the prospects for the industry look brightest, it being nearest the center of the world's shipping activities. The cost of production in that district is most likely to permit of competition with British yards. The future of the -St. Lawrence yards as a factor in the shipbuilding industry would seem to be reasonably assured. In the matter of prices, the British Columbia yards have done as well as any in the Dominion, having bid as low as $167.50 per ton on several vessels for the mercantile marine. Before the signing of the armistice, the average price paid on these contracts was $199.63 per ton. Since that time the average price has been $173.17.
Some hon. gentlemen have also criticised this policy as being opposed to their dree trade views. May I refer the House to what has been done in free-trade England in connection with the development of the shipbuilding industry? I would quote from the Marine Journal of June 19, a New York paper, which has the following reference to British shipping:
Greatest of British shipping organizations, the Cunard Company is operating scores of passenger and cargo steamers between New York and the ports of the United Kingdom and the Continent-competing with unsubsidized American steamers. The Cunard Company has since 184-0 enjoyed a liberal subsidy from the British Treasury. Some years ago the Government loaned the Cunard Company $13,000,000 to build the Mauretania and Lusitania, and gave the company a new subsidy of $1,100,000 a year for twenty years, by which the loan could be repaid; and the rate of interest charged was the nominal one of 2 j per cent 
So that free-tr-ade England has built up her marine and her shipbuilding industry by direct government assistance, and it seems to me that if we want to develop in Canada a big industry we cannot do better than imitate what has been done across the water. If we consider the proposition which is before the House, it will he seen that every precaution has been taken not only in regard to the financial standing of the purchasers-and I can assure the House that the financial status of the companies who want ships now is -more than satisfactory-but also as regards the ability of the Canadian shipbuilder to execute his contract and also as regards his financial ability to -discharge completely his- responsibilities. Everything is safeguarded. The Government -are not obliged to advance money but are simply empowered to do so; and if any criticism is to be offered it is that they did not see their way clear to go further, because I am afraid that this 25 per cent cash payment will not seoure foreign orders. Be that as it may, I-think that in the present instanlce we .should only -congratulate the Government for their forward and progressive policy, because they are assuring the life of the Canadian shipbuilding industry -without spending a cent. They do not incur a -cent of liability, because they have 200 per cent of guarantee for every cent that they will endorse but will not disburse. For these reasons I shall be in favour of the proposition, and I trust that my -hon. friends on this side of the House will see at in the sa-me light and .also favour it:


Mr. F. H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora) :: Mr. Speaker, allow m-e to take the first opportunity to commend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) for the information he has- given to- the House as to- what has been done on the other side of the water. We on this side ought to know something o-f wha't is taking place here. Let me speak from experience in- regard to this shipbuilding question from the Canadian point of view. We have been told that our seventeen yards in Canada employ 25,000 men, a large proportion of whom are returned soldiers, and that a large amount of capital is invested. What happened in the middle of last winter in one of those yards I desire to tell the House. In December, -at Christmas time,
I went home to spend the Christmas vacation and the moment I got there I was appro-ached by employees of the ehipyard, by the returned soldiers, the council and

every one, wfho- wanted to know if something could not he dene to keep that yard working during the winter. The difficulty was considerable. The policy of the Government bad been declared: No more ships. The appropriation that was made was practically exhausted. Immediately on my return to Ottawia I interviewed the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) who at first was like adamant. Not another ship would he build. It was pointed out to him, however, that the situation was critical and that it would be serious to throw out of work men living a thousand miles away from centres of employment. He was shown that these men were struggling to keep up their homes, and so forth; how the cessation in shipbuilding would affect the merchants of that town, as well as other places throughout Canada, and the general result that would ensue. As a business man he saw the proposition in its proper light and gave me one more ship to carry through the winter. This summer that yard is out of employment unless something like 'this is done. We have heard the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) explain quite correctly why it is that we can get no foreign orders. When one realizes that the franc to-day is worth >a quarter of what it was worth in normal times-as the hon. member for Three Rivers pointed out, it takes twenty-two francs-


Mr. DUFF:: Twelve.
Mr. KEEFERwell, twelve-to buy what heretofore could he bought with five, you can readily understand how it is that foreign orders will not come to- this country unless this can be lavoided. I think that if by granting one dollar we can get another dollar in addition to that to spend in this country and get security it is very good and sound business.
The objection is offered that the ships may be thrown back on our hands; that they may not be paid for, that freights will fall, that the value o*f the ships will decrease, and that these ships will be left on the hands of the Government. Well, I wish they 'were. We- have :no-t enough shipt to-day in the Canadian Merchant Marine and it would be u very good investment for Canada to get theses ships a't half cost. To-day we have built and contracted for sixty-th-ree ships; that is not enough to do the business of this Dominion on the Pacific and on the Atlantic coasts. Canada stands in a most remarkable position so far as shipping is concerned. On the East -and on the West she -reaches out with both arms to the two oceans. Of all
countries, her eastern coast is nearest her western co-ast on a trip around the iworld. We have not enough .ships to-day to do the business of Canada. We have -a destiny -ahead of us; we must become a maritime nation.
We have not only the salt w-ater navigation to- take care of; we must also look to the interior stretch of navigation on the Great Lakes, and the time is not very f-ar distant when we shall have the seashore of Canada enlarged- b-y many thousands of miles. Some twenty-four hundred miles from Belle Isle straits to the head of lake Superior will soo-n become -accessible to navigation of salt-wa'teir ships; and when the canals, the Welland and St. -Lawrence, are constructed, eighty per cent of the navigation of the seas will sail these inland lak-es- coming through these canals, and we shall not have -enough -ships to carry the produce of 'the country. What is the situation to-day in the United Spates? The interior states atre suffering from their inability to get produce to the seaports. There is wheat to-day in Kansas grown last year, with this year's wheat also on top of it; and one of the factors of the -high cost of living is this inability to get-crops out to the seaports. We in Canada so -far have root been troubled thus because of ou-r transcontinental routes and. the moderate -amount of -shipping on the Lakes. But the time is coming when, as we -grow in population and -put more land under cultivation, We shall be choked -at the spout unless we have more ships to carry that material away. During the last year or two some of it -had to he moved by rail, -amd -even- as it is now, transportation by water and breaking bulk at lake Erie ports, it represents six cents a bushel more. It means a great deal to the West if this saving be made and handed to the producers. It also means -a great deal to the purchaser of products imported. Even if we had these -ships thrown- hack on our hands for the half of their cost the Government would be much richer as a result of it.
We should have a line of steamers running from the Pacific coast through the Panama canal, stopping, trading and unloading in the West Indies, and going on then loaded to Halifax. We should have another line running from Halifax, doing the same thing, picking up cargoes and taking them through the Panama canal to British Columbia ports. Then we should have railway transportation east and west meeting halfway in connection with this steam-

ship service. We have not enough ships to do that to-day. We cannot trade with South Africa, with Australia, with New Zealand or with India although we need, consume, and are buying, products which they produce, let alone trading also with the foreign nations of the world.
10 p.m. For these reasons I would strongly urge this House to unanimously pass the second reading of this Bill.
It is a pleasure indeed to se hon. gentlemen stand up like the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), lay aside their politics, lay aside all party considerations, and look at this question from a purely Canadian point of view.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Unlike the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) I have no special knowledge of the shipbuilding industry. I would approach the- question from one point of view. I am not prepared to go into the details of the proposition, but I would view it entirely from one standpoint, and it is this: If this country is prepared t'o adopt the principle that any private individual or any industry in particular can come to this Parliament for the purpose of having the Government of Canada endorse its notes and business proposals I see no reason why every other industry in Canada cannot do the same thing. The argument which has been made, and well made from his point of view, by the hon. member for Lotbiniere might as well be made for any other industry in Canada. I see no distinction and the argument falls to the ground unless hon. gentlemen on the other side or those who, on this side, are in favour of the proposition, can show to me . that the Commercial life of Canada is vitally affected by this particular industry, or unless they are willing to accept and follow the principle which they have enunciated in the interest of one industry and apply it to all other industries. I think that is absolutely sound.
'The argument has been advanced that assistance should be given to the shipbuilding industry in this way in order that some 20,000 or 23,000 men may be continued in their employment. The very same argument would apply to men employed in other industries. For example, we will say that in the city of Kitchener, which is a very busy industrial centre, the furniture industry finds it rather hard sledding. We have some eighteen or twenty factories and they find it difficult to keep their factories go-

ing and their men employed. A. deputation representing these factories comes down here and asks the Government to assist them to develop an export business and for that purpose to extend t'o them the credit of the country. These men would never think of doing such a thing and this Parliament would never think of granting the request. But the shipbuilders come to this Parliament and ask for the credit of the Dominion in carrying on their private enterprise. If it is granted that the shipbuilders are entitled to this consideration then any 'other industry is entitled to come to Parliament and receive the same assistance. It has also been said that this is necessary in order to save the industry itself. Well, I do not believe in that argument, because the probabilities are that the industry will have to be saved over and over again. It will not be the last time probably that they will make a request to the Government for assistance; and once the Government has taken this step I do not see how it can logically refuse to take the second step, and the third step,-and follow it up by giving the same sort of assistance to anybody else who may choose to come here and ask for it.
We had the same argument advanced in regard to loans to foreign countries. We had one example in particular which impressed itself upon my mind at the time,- the guaranteeing of something like $7,000,000 of contracts for the sale of meat to Italy. The argument had previously been put forward on behalf of the Government that those credits were extended in order that industry 'in this country might be assisted and working men be given employment. But that argument could not possibly apply in the case of the meat sold to Italy. As a matter of fact $7,000,000 of the credit of the Dominion was given entirely on behalf of perhaps one man alone. The people of Canada did not gain; but they may lose in so far as the national credit is pledged. As to Roumania, we know today that by the credit given certain manufacturers, this country may lose all the money that has been advanced. At least, we know now, that not even the interest has ever been paid on the Roumanian loan.
The statement has been made that this course should be taken in order to assist in restoring the balance of exchange. Well, that argument holds good for any other industry you might choose to name. And I am on my feet to simply register my protest against the Government adopting the principle of assisting with its credit the

making of profits by private industry. If we are going to do it now, let us have it thoroughly understood that 'this is the . settled policy of the Government, and let us fight it on that basis. I ifor one am not going to support the initial move which, if logically followed out, will lead to the backing of any and every private industry with the credit of 'Canada.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS ('George Etienne Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I concur in every word that has fallen from the hon. member from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I think the Government is making a serious mistake in embarking upon this policy. Are we in a financial, position to undertake commitments of this kind? It must be borne in mind that we are paying now about 6 per cent for money, and it seems to me that this is the very time when we ought to pull in our horns rather than embark on a policy of further credits.
If private enterprise wishes to engage in shipbuilding, well and good; but why should we, as a Government, undertake to bonus this particular industry at the ex

pense of every other industry in the country? It has been said that unless we assist this industry we are going to have a large number of men thrown out of employment. But that contingency may arise in every line of industry. Take the clothing industry in the city of Montreal, which is one of 'the most important industries in the province of Quebec: we have sometimes thousands of men thrown out of work between seasons. Does the Government come to the assistance of the clothing manufacturers and bonus them in order that they may re-engage those men? .


Mr. VIEN:: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Did not the Government, with the assent of my hon. friend, facilitate tlfe placing of a number of orders with the woollen and textile industries by way of credits to other countries?


Samuel William Jacobs: All I can say to my hon. friend is that it certainly was not with my assistance or approval. Every time the question came up I opposed it as vigorously as I could. [DOT] When the granting o'f credits to the Balkan States was before the House my stand upon the question will be found in Hansard. I opposed those credits as being a vicious principle. Now I find that that same principle is to be extended to the shipbuilding industry. I opposed even the shipbuilding programme of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for I thought it was not good business, particularly at the present juncture, to embark upon such an enterprise. Much more do I feel that this principle of bonusing private individuals is a vicious principle and should be frowned down by -this House and by the country.
Last year when the then Minister of Finance, the member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) was examined before a special committee appointed, I think, to study the problem of the cost of living, he stated emphatically that while he would not go so far as to say that .the financial condition of the country was critical, it was serious. Has anything arisen in the meantime to cause us to change our view with regard to our financial condtion? It seems to me that the Government *in this particular case, as in other cases, is playing like a gambler who intends by a last desperate throw to redeem his fallen fortunes. There seems to be no enterprise put before them which they do not think ought to be supported. But I trust that the House will call a halt to this mad wild scheme of bonusing one particular industry to the detriment of every other industry in the country.
If it goes forth that industries are being bonused in order to keep people in employment-
Mr. BAiLLANTYNE: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Did not the Liberal Administration bonus the steel and lead industries during their term of office?


Samuel William Jacobs: A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since that time. We cannot compare the condition of the country under the Liberal .Administration

which had the support of my good friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne)-with the present condition where we have a -staggering debt of $2,000,000,000 and an annual burden of $400,000,000. Where are we going to get this inexhaustible supply of money which is being demanded from day to day by greedy friends of the >Government? It seems to be only necessary for a person to come before the 'Government with any scheme, to receive favourable consideration, and to at once have it crystallized into the form of a resolution, followed by a Bill, and put through the House.
I regret that my good friends from Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien) and Three Bivers (Mr. Bureau) should isee fit to join 'forces with the Government in this new raid which it is contemplated to make upon the Treasury. Of course, in the case of my hon. friend from Three Eivers, I can understand the

reason, because he has in his division a large number of people who would be thrown out of employment, so that it is, as we would say _ in French, une cause d'esp&ce,-a particular case. And probably there is some good reason why my good friend from Lotbiniere has found it necessary to ally himself with the Government on this matter.
If we are going to bonus various enterprise's, why not bonus, for instance, lawyers?
.Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: Many of us could do with a little bonusing just now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. JAlOOlBS: I am glad that that has met with some support all round. The same prinicple applies, Mr. Speaker. We were told yesterday that there is no money to pay members a decent indemnity. But we find plenty of money to pay out to foreign gentlemen, who in glowing terms * depict to us what great good is going to come to the country if we only pledge our credit for them.
The business of the Government is to govern not to act as bankers or, .as the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) has said, as pawnbrokers. If we go into a system of that kind we do not know where we will land. To-day we have shipbuilding; to-morrow we may have banks; the next day we will have railroads-well, we have .railroads, the railroads like the poor, we have always with us. In the light of our experience in the matter of railroads, does the House not think that we ought to go slow in the matter of the- other form of transportation, -shipping? We have lost hundreds of millions of dollars through our railroads; we have almost bankrupted the country. What assurance have we that in the matter of shipbuilding we shall not find ourselves, metaphorically speaking, on the rocks? At least the railroads are in our own country. We can bring immigrants here and develop the country, and at some time in the future the railroads may be useful to us. But ships are here to-day and to-morrow God knows where they are. I think the Government is making a very serious mistake *in embarking upon this policy,. I trust that it is not too late for them to realize the undesirability, particularly at this juncture, of bringing in a Bill to pledge the credit of the country to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Minister of Finance, I notice, expresses surprise; I can understand his being alarmed

when we talk of hundreds of millions-I will say, tens of millions of dollars. Here we are at the end of the session, and the (Government asks us to consider an important matter of this kind, lit is usual for the Government to state in the Speech from the Throne what legislation of importance it intends to bring down so that members may study carefully the questions which will be brought before the House and obtain information from all sources with regard thereto. But in the last days of, the session, when we are told that we are to remain here only three or four days longer, we are asked to pledge the credit of the country to the extent of vast sums of money. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a mistake and I intend to record my vote against it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the point raised by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who stated that the furniture peoiple of Waterloo and other large centres in that vicinity have just as much right as the shipbuilders have to ask for such guarantees as are now proposed. I am unable to follow my hon. friend in that argument. If the shipbuilders of Canada had the benefit of the same protective duty that the furniture manufacturers have; if this Government were willing to give to the shipbuilders the same amount of protection that is given to the furniture manufacturers, this Bill would not now be before the House. But absolutely no protection of any kind is given to the shipbuilders of this country. Having regard to the fact that Canada has shown her ability to build ships as efficiently as the United Kingdom is able to build them, and to the further fact that various Governments of Canada during the last fifty years have wisely assisted our diversified industries, some through a protective tariff and some through bonuses. I think it is fair that the shipbuilders from Halifax to Prince Rupert who have invested fifty millions in the shipbuilding business should ask the Government to afford them reasonable protection. The shipbuilders would be well satisfied if the Government could give them a protective tariff or a bonus.
Mr. JACOBS,: How would it be possible for the shipbuilders to have a protective tariff?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend,
being a lawyer, should understand that that would not be possible, but it is possible that they be given a bonus. I am not here to decry bonuses, but I understand that

they are not very popular at present, although in years gone by they were wisely granted by both Liberal and Conservative Administrations. As a result of the granting of such bonuses we have many large industries in this country that we otherwise would not have had. Now, during the past year several delegations of shiipbuil-/ ders have asked the Government to give them a bonus. The Government have not seen their way clear to do that. The hon. member for 'George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) likes to refer to the present proposal as a bonus, but he knows full well that it is not a bonus. He understands legislation as well as any other hon. member, and he must know that this is simply a Government guarantee with ample security. The Government of Canada have, first of all, a note from a good, strong financial buyer; that is- the first security that the Government have. The Government will have a say as to the yards in which the ships shall be built; they will see to it that the contracts are placed only with yards that are strong and in good conditibn financially. The second security that the Government have is the endorsation of the shipbuilder who gets the contracts. And on top of that the Government have a mortgage on the full amount of the ship, although they are putting up only half the value of the ship. It does not take much of a business man to understand at once that this arrangement is a most advantageous one from the standpoint of the Government. The people of Montreal will not be pleased with the attitude taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) with regard to this legislation; neither will the people of Canada generally be pleased with his attitude respecting the Government's shipbuilding programme. But regardless of that the Government are going on their way. If the hon, member will take the trouble to look at this morning's Montreal Gazette-I am sure that there is no newspaper in Canada that he has more faith in-


Samuel William Jacobs: Excuse me. Do not wish the Gazette on me.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the opinions of
that paper do not carry weight with the hon. member, they do carry weight with the business men of Montreal and throughout the country. The Gazette, in an editorial, fully endorses the policy of the Government in this regard. The whole question comes down to this: Who would not guarantee notes if the security offered him was two to one?	i


William Daum Euler: If that is a sound attitude to take, why would it not apply to any industry? Are we in the money-lending business-?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have explained to the hon, member that this industry has- no protection whatever. I do not want to cover again the ground that has been so -ably covered by the hon. .member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien), nor do I want to take up the time of hon. members by -covering again the ground that I went over the other night. This is one of our great national industries-$50,000,000 of capital is invested in this industry; 25,0000 men are engaged in it; another 25,000 men are engaged in machine shops and boiler shops- throughout this -country making marine engines, boilers, pumps- and -so on. And in these times of stress and -strain, it is the duty and obligation of the 'Government -and of this House, when we get the aimiple security that we are getting under the provisions of this Bill, to keep this national industry of ours going and to keep those 50,000 men employed.
The notes that will be given are not longterm notes, -and my opinion is that it will be only a very short time until the notes are redeemed and the mortgages will be lifted on those ships, and in the meantime we shall keep our seventeen shipyards throughout Canada fully employed for two or three years, or perhaps more, Therefore, I am sure that a majority of the -members of this House are s-atisfied with the provisions- of this Bill; that they are satisfied with regard to the security that is offered, and that they will be quite Willing to support the Government when the time comes, to vote upon this Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman is a director of a number of banks -an-dl trust companies in Montreal. Will he tell us whether th-e promoters of this scheme attempted to obtain money from the banks or trust companies before they came to the Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is a very easy question to answer. While the hon. member has. done me the honour to say that I am a director of several banks and trust companies, I may say that I am a director of one bank and one trust company only.


Samuel William Jacobs: Look at the trust company.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Very well. The
bankers have been consulted .in regard to this proposition for several months past. The



shipbuilders who are putting up 25 per cent of the money will have to go to the banks to get it; hut such a large quantity of tonnage as this, if we get the orders we hope to get, will run into many millions of dollars. T-he shipbuilder is going to put up a quarter; the buyer is going to iput up a quarter, and the Government is going to guarantee one-lialf from time to time as the ships are being constructed, with the admirable security which I have mentioned.


Samuel William Jacobs: Us the bank not going to .advance the money and the Government going to secure the Bank?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Daum Euler: Is it not simply the intention of the Government to endorse notes?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind hon. members that the House is not in Committee. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, (Mr. Ballantyne) has now resumed .his seat.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on the second reading of this Bill; but when I listened to the speeches of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) and .specially my good friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), I could not very well remain silent. Two years ago the Minister of Marine and Fisheries asked u.s to pass an Estimate for $30,000,000 to build ships in this country and thereby establish shipyards. I felt that was not a good policy at the time. By voting that amount we sowed the wind; to-night we are reaping the whirlwind. The .situation which faces tha Canadian people to-day on account of the introduction of this legislation i,s exactly what might be expected from .such a policy as was introduced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his associates who knew nothing about shipbuilding or shipbuilding conditions. That is why it is necessary for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to introduce this Bill to-night. What do we find? You cannot build up any business on false premises; a business to remain established must be built under proper conditions. If you, Sir, or any other man in this country, desires to establish a business, before he does so, he looks over his field of operations and he .sees first if he has customers for his product. It is almost impossible for a man to tell exactly what. is going to happen or how long a
[Mr. Ballantyne.!
business is going to continue; but before he invests his money or goes on the stock exchange and sells stock, he must have a prospect which will give .sufficient inducement to himself or his friends or the public generally to invest money in that business. What did we find in the shipbuilding policy of the Government in which they put $70,000,000 which I and other members of the House opposed at that time? It was this. The Government deliberately went into a business of which they knew nothing; they gave orders to shipbuilders in this country who had no plants. If we had had shipbuilding plants throughout the country there might have been some reason why, during the stress and strain of the war, as the minister has described it, orders might have been given for a few vessels in order to help the old Mother Country out. But the Government policy was such that shipyards sprung up like mushrooms on entirely an unsound basis.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will take the time to-morrow to look up my first speech on shipbuilding in March or April of 1918, he will find that I then stated that there were fourteen steel shipbuilding yards in Canada.


William Duff: I do not want to question; any statement which the minister makes. It is quite possible there might have been, fourteen, shipyards in Canada at that time; but whether there were or not.,, we have-heard to-night that the reason why we should pass this Bill is to keep certain shipyards in this country in existence. We are told, if we do not vote for the principle of this Bill, 23,500 shipwrights and 25,000 other men will be thrown out of employment. If, as the minister says, there were fourteen shipyards in this country before lie embarked upon this suicidal policy of building ships for this country, his argument falls to the ground, because if these shipyards were established, why should we do a-s the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) says and come to the rescue of shipyards with orders or credits at this time? The fact that the Canadian Government embarked upon this policy gave the shipyards encouragement to go ahead and spend money-which has been estimated by one hon. member at $50,000,000-in plants. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us that those yards were established before we had these abnormal conditions. You can take one side or the other. If, as the minister says, the shipyards were established, then the argument falls to the ground that

by this Bill that we are asked to pass tonight, we are protecting $50,000,000 invested by shipbuilders in this country. I want to take the other side-and I think I am right in taking it

arid that is, by the policy which the Government adopted in 1918, they have taken from the farm, from the fisheries, from the lumber camps and from every other industry, men who have gone into the shipyards and built ships for which the Government have supplied the money. Had that not been done, had those industries been allowed to stand on their own bottoms, if the tonnage of the world turned out to be scarce, and people wanted tonnage, orders would have come without governmental assistance, and we would not be in the position in which we find ourselves to-night. Now we are told that if we do not come to the assistance of these shipyards they will have to close down, and the men employed will be thrown out of work. Well, that condition has occurred before. It appears to me a poor argument to say that because the Government find themselves unable to borrow sufficient money to allow the -Minister of- Marine and Fisheries to build more ships, we should assist these private shipyards or the men will be thrown out of employment. If they were thrown out of employment it might be the best thing that could happen if they cannot keep going on their own finances and credit, for they would go into other productive industries. Personally, I do not think it would happen, because I think the men who have money invested in these shipyards would go out and get orders them-selvec. If some men were thrown out of employment it might be the very best thing that could happen, because they would then go into other industries and produce the products which are so much required by the people of this country and of foreign lands.


Mr. MORPHY:: The other evening I
asked the hon. member if he would favour the Government's policy if it included assistance in the building of wooden ships. He said he would have to consider the matter. I repeat my question now that he has had time to consider it.


William Duff: I am very pleased indeed the hon. member asked me that question. I would answer it in this way: If it is good business for the Government to embark upon the policy set forth in this Bill, would it not also be right if to-morrow morning I took into the office of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Marine a delegation of shipbuilders of wooden ships from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I say that the Government policy should take-into consideration every branch of the shipbuilding industry. The Government has no right in formulating their policy to pick out a special class of shipbuilder, and for'that reason this policy should be voted against by my hon. friends in this House. -It is not right or fair for the Government to bring down to this House a proposition picking out a certain industry in Kingston, Quebec, Montreal, or Halifax, and excluding the wooden shipbuilding industries on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If the Government had included assistance to wooden shipbuilders would the hon. member support this policy?


Mr. LALOR:: Come on, that is the second time.


William Duff: Pork and beans make a very good meal if there are no stones in them, as the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) should know.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Come along. [DOT]


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask hon. members to assist the -Speaker in maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House.


William Duff: In answer to my hon. friend from North Perth I want to say that the shipbuilding business in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has been in existence ever since those provinces were settled. The shipbuilders of these provinces have never asked the Government for any assistance. When the war started, and the cry for ships came from the Old Land and from the Allied countries, the people of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick put their hands in their pockets, or they went to their bankers, and said: We are asked to build ships to help the Mother Country. Instead of going to the Government for assistance the shipbuilders of those two provinces established the industry there themselves, and built the ships that were so urgently required. I do not wish to decry any industry, but I may say to my hon. friend that the Nova Scotia shipbuilders are exactly in the same position to-day as the shipbuilders who are asking for this legislation which we are asked to pass tonight. Have we heard a cry from Macedonia, or from Nova Scotia, asking the Government to help the shipbuilders of that province? Has there been any cry from the

shipbuilders of New Brunswick? No, Sir. You will not see the men from Nova Scotia coming to this Parliament and asking for assistance. 'They believe in standing on their own feet and their own bottom, and that is what these other shipbuilders should do. If the shipbuilders at Quebec and Kingston and Montreal cannot build ships and sell them in competition with other builders, there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to close up shop, just as my hon. friend would have to do if he was in business and had no customers. It would be regrettable, of course, if such an amiable gentlemian should have to close up any business he was interested in, but if he had not any customers, I am sure he would not come to the Government and say; For God's sake, help me out of this hole for two or three or six months or longer.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Do I understand my hon. friend "to say that the builders of wooden ships do not require any assistance and would not accept it if it was included in this proposal?
Mr. LALOE; Come across.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind h'on. members that the hon. member for Lunenburg has the floor, and that it is absolutely contrary to the rules of the House for other hon. members to interrupt him.


William Duff: I am very pleased to answer the question. I might say, first to my hon. friend from Haldimand that beans are very palatable when they are properly put up, and if there are no stones in them.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member should not prevoke interruptions, he should assist in maintaining the decorum of the House.


William Duff: The hon. member for North Perth asked me a question with respect to the building of wooden ships in Nova Scotia.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: You have enough wind; you do not need any beans.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must once
more remind hon. members that the House is not in committee, and that putting arguments in the form of questions is absolutely contrary to the rules of the House.


William Duff: Although I cannot speak for the shipbuilders of the province of Nova Scotia, I feel they are far too independent to come to this Parliament and expect the

people of this c'ountry to help them carry on their business. If they cannot carry it on themselves, I believe they would willingly close up their establishments, and the men would go into some other productive industry. The shipbuilders of Nova Scotia do not want any help from this Govern-' ment either in the way 'of a cash advance, a bonus, or endoreation of their notes by the Government.
Coming back to the Bill, I think it will be admitted by everybody that an individual who endorses a note for another party always feels that he is not entering into a proper business transaction. There are sometimes circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to endorse somebody's note, but it is usually done under pressure, or because he is in politics or for some other reason. It certainly has never been considered good business in this country or any other for a private individual or a business firm to endorse the notes of other individuals or business firms. Consequently, it cannot be good business for this Government to endorse the notes of gentlemen who are resident in other countries, or even in this country. There is another matter to which I wish to refer in this connection. The otheT evening in discussing this question I said that I did not think that it was necessary for the Government to endorse these notes. I felt that if this 'business was a bona fide one, and if these men who want the ships built were responsible parties, it should not be necessary for the Government to endorse their notes. The business can he arranged through the bank's as any other business has been arranged, and I expressed myself to that effect. To-night I heard the Minister of Marine say, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), that so far as the banking interests were concerned he did not think, from the information he had, that they would loan this money. The other evening when the resolution was before the House I asked that a certain time be given so that hon. members might make inquiries as to whether or not it was possible for the shipbuilders who were getting the contracts to arrange the financial end of the business. Of course, I cannot divulge private interviews or any conversation that occurred between me and certain persons; but I have no hesitation in making this affirmation, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, if the proper security were given by the man who wants ships in a foreign country and if the guarantee of the

French Government or a Ibank in France were 'given, there would' he no trouble in this country in raising the amount of money required for the purpose of building ships. The only criticism I have heard in regard to the proposition that this Government should assist in the financing of the enterprise is that the financial interests of the country have no confidence in the Government. We find in this Bill that these ships are to be registered in a foreign country and that this Government will have a mortgage on them. Now, if I remember rightly, this is not the policy adopted by this Government a short time ago, and in order to support this statement I will [DOT] quote words that fell from the lips of no less a personage than the Minister of Marine himself. It will be remembered that some time ago the British Government wanted this country to build ships, and the British Minister of Munitions was willing to place an order in this country provided the ships were transferred to British registry. The Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballan-tyne) considered-and rightly so, it seems to me-that the more ships we could register in this country the better it would be for us. I will give his exact words:
It should he remembered in this connection that the ships built by the Imperial Munitions Board (for the British Ministry of Shipping), while financed with Canadian credit, were for the British Government, for British registry, and for operation in whatever part of the world they might be needed.
The Minister of Marine at that time did not favour the building of ships to be placed under British instead' of 'Canadian registry. At that time he was purely Canadian; to-day he is somewhat alien, not in iblood but in sentiment. In addition to that statement having been made by the Minister of Marine just a few months ago, another gentleman, who is thought a good deal of in this country, made a similar statement. This gentleman is connected with the Marine Department, but yet I think his words will carry some weight. Mr. Alexander Johnston said:
The Minister of Marine, with the most hearty concurrence of the departmental officers, concluded that, if ships were to be built with moneys advanced by the Canadian Government, it would prove more beneficial ultimately to have them owned by Canada, registered in Canada, and subject to direction and allocation by the Canadian Government.
So we have no less a personage than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his estimable deputy saying 'that ships built with Canadian money or with Canadian
credit should fly no other flag than that of the Canadian nation. But we have another gentleman who also was opposed to the plan of financing ships for foreign countries. This gentleman oaime into this House andi strongly recommended1 that something be done for the shipyards of this country. I refer ,to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) who came to the 'Government's defence in regard to the proposed .financing ,of Canadian shipbuilding. Among other things the hon. member said:
Canada was financing the British shipbuilding programme in Canada for the benefit of Great Britain and it was obviousy better for Canada in her own interests to finance this programme for the benefit of Canada in view of her need of ships and of after-war conditions than it was to keep on building ships with her credit for the benefit of Great Britain.
If we want to be loyal to Great Britain and Canada why should we .advance credit to foreign countries when we are not willing to do it for the Mother Country? If the .Minister of Marine is sincere and consistent he cannot oome to this House, having made .that statement only eighteen months ago, and say that he is quite satisfied to advance money and'credit to foreign countries' for ships.
I must say that this is a wildcat scheme. If there is any security which is just a little worse than any other it is the security of a ship. Perhaps 1 may be allowed to make that statement because I have had something to do with ships. If I understand the Bill correctly it means that when the ships are launched and ready for sea they will be immediately transferred to French register.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Duff: Do I understand) the minister to say that they will not be registered in France?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. They will
have no other register except Canadian register until such time as the notes are paid and the mortgages are lifted.


William Duff: The minister corrects me by saying that these ships will be under Canadian register until the notes are paid. Admitting that to be the fact, let us go a little farther. Under Canadian register and under the present Shipping Act, the ships will have to be captained and officered by British subjects. I cannot undler-stand that the French buyer of a ship will want it to be .captained by a British or Canadian captain. It is quite evident that the Government 'has not looked1 into this matter properly. I fully believe that when


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdale: This is such an important question that I feel that anybody who has any definite ideas upon it will be excused at this late hour for briefly referring to it. This is a venture that Canada could not safely embark upon under ordinary circumstances but only under very exceptional circumstances, namely, that the shipyards of this country must go out of business unless something of this sort is done. Let us look at the history of this case in so far as we can gather it from the statements made by the ministers who have had charge of the negotiations.
[Mr. Duff.4
The building of ships to the order of Canadians has practically come to an end and shipbuilders have now received an offer from foreign countries to build ships. They ask: "Where is your money"? The negotiations result in showing that owing to the low rate of exchange the foreigners cannot make a bargain with our shipbuilding industries that is satisfactory to them. Here we have offers made to buy ships and the shipyards cannot build the ships on account of the unsatisfactory terms offered. It is perfectly natural that this position of affairs should be presented to the Government 'both by the shipbuilding industries and by the proposed purchasers. Unless the Government can contemplate the shipyards going out of business it seems to me the only thing they can do is to come before the House with a proposal of this sort. It is a courageous enterprise, a good business project, it has sound business reasons behind it, and therefore the Bill should be supported. It i.s a proposition that will commend itself to large business men and lawyers as being one in the public interest. One argument in opposition to it is that it is proposed to advance this credit on a promissory note. That may be a good argument from the debating standpoint but it does not touch the real point of this arrangement. While notes are given to secure the advance for a year and nine months and up to fifty-seven months yet the real basis of the bargain is the mortgage being placed upon a ship under Dominion of Canada. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) .spoke about this mortgage being placed upon a ship under the register of a foreign country. That is not so, it must.be registered in Canada. During the war the rates were so high that a ship could pay for its entire cost in two voyages, and in many cases I am told the whole cost could be paid for by one voyage. Freight rates are still high and I am told that ships can pay for themselves in a very short time. If the notes are. not paid as they become due the Dominion is entitled to sue upon them, foreclose the mortgage and take over the ship. The owners cannot look upon that possibility from a business standpoint for one moment and if they cannot finance these notes from the profits of the ship they must provide other means in order to keep to the tenor of the note.
For another reason I am very much impressed with the importance of this measure. For many years I have held consistently that Canada to be a .successful country must

be a shipbuilding country. We have an enormous line of seacoast and we muet take example 'by other countries, especially England and Scotland, which have succeeded from the fact that they are shipbuilding countries. If we are to look to our future with confidence we must take our share in the shipbuilding industry of the world. If these shipyards are to fall by reason of not being able to get Canadian orders and have to look'for European customers, then a very large force goes out of the business of shipbuilding and it cannot be restored. The business will languish and the trade we now have will be at an end. I do not look at this matter from the viewpoint of many of the members of the House who have opposed this scheme on the ground that it is a proposal made by the shipyards themselves for their own protection and benefit. I look upon it from another standpoint altogether apart from their interest and from their success. Of course we are all interested in their success but only in a mild degree. I look upon this scheme as being one for the purpose of keeping the shipyards-going till we see what can be done in the next few years. It is of grave national concern that these shipyards should be kept going. My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) says that if this assistance is granted to the shipbuilding industry, any other industry can come to Parliament for similar assistance. That is true; they can come here for assistance; but they will not get it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Mr. MOW  AT@: No other industry can come here and hope to get .the country to back its notes unless, as in this case, the national interest is bound up with the industry. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), who exclaimed "Hear, hear", to what I said just now, spoke of a man in his constituency who might want to build a barn coming to the Government for financial assistance. That is, of course, reducing the matter to an absurdity, because of the fact that whether or not new barns are built in Brome is of no concern to this House or to the country,

although I am sure we would all be glad to see that riding prosper.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Thanks.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdale: That argument it appears to me is met in this- way: That we do not commit ourselves to help other industries in the future; every case must stand on its own bottom and must be considered on its merits; and I am sure that if any farmer
from Brome were to come here and ask us to finance his barn even the hon. member for that constituency would not advocate before this House the granting of such assistance.
I am surprised to see my friends directly opposite applauding points which they think are made against this proposition, because if there is any class in Canada that depends upon the shipping industry being developed to such a point that competition in rates can become effective, and where we can be sure that enough bottoms are ready to carry the grain of the country to foreign markets, it is the grain growers of the Northwest. And how they can oppose a scheme which will- benefit their industry to that extent I fail to understand. If they could show that we would be called upon to pay this money-which is a large amount, no doubt-then it might well be said that it was too great a risk for the country to assume, but I have heard no argument from them, as business men, that the country is risking a single dollar; we are simply giving our credit in an exceptional case. I think that when my friends ponder this matter and realize that their whole existence depends upon the shipping industry of Canada so that bottoms will be available in ever increasing numbers to take the grain of the country to the markets of Europe,-
I say that when they realize the importance of shipping to their very existence-they will see that they are ill-advised to oppose the passage of this Bill.
I -have heard-of course, I do not know whether it is true or not, but I daresay that representations have been made to the Government-that if these prospective purchasers are not able to place their orders at the present time, these seventeen shipyards must shut down. If those shipyards have to dismiss their men they will lose a very competent lot of mechanics who will drift into other lines of work, and if we ever try to resuscitate the industry we shall be confronted with difficulties which it will be well-nigh impossible to overcome.


Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie):: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mir. Mowat) has -stated that the shipbuilding yards of Canada must shut down unless they are pap fed. Of course my hon. friend did not use these exact words, but he spoke to the same effefct. It is the same old story, that the big interests are still coming hack to the Government to be pap fed. I would not like to see our shipyards closed, but such a contingency does not seem probable, judging from the statement made some weeks ago

by Grant Morden of the Dominion Steel Corporation, . to the effect that we could build ships in Oanada as cheaply as in Great Britain, and that our steel industries were well equipped to compete with foreign rivals. If this be the case, rather than come to the Government to endorse notes for fifty per cent of the cost of any and every ship, the big interests should go to our financial institutions. But they follow the time-honoured custom of coming to the Government to be .pap fed.
My good friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) made reference to the high ocean rates prevailing to-day. I venture to say that by the time these ships are launched and carrying freight on the Atlantic the rates will he considerably reduced. It seems to me that this is another game similar to what has been played in the past when we were persuaded to guarantee the bonds of railway companies. Now we have those railways on our hands, and probably we *may have a number of second-hand ships left with us. I notice that some of these notes may be drawn for as long as 57 months-almost 5 years. Now, it is quite possible that a number of these ships after that period of time will not be very much of an asset, but rather a liability, because ocean rates will certainly come down, and this Government, or whatever Government is then in control, will ffind itself with a number of second-hand ships on its hands as well as the 22,000 miles of railway which cost us altogether too 'much money.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) put the question:	Are we to-day
going into the money-loaning business? It seems to me that we are making a start in that direction. But when we look into the Treasury we find that not only is it empty, hut it is over $2,000,000,000 in debt. The cost of construction of ships per ton in Canada is very much in excess of the cost in the Old Country, and surely there must he something else behind this proposal, because if our good friends really wish to purchase in the cheapest market they could purchase their .ships in the Old Country at a much less price at any rate than our Government ships Cost us.
We are asked to support this proposition because it will provide labour for our mechanics. But this Government does not need to go very far to find such labour. The Government of Saskatchewan is expending over $1,000,000 in building good roads, but they cannot find men to do the work. Even this Government told us when

that no labour is available to build the roadbed or to lay the steel. And yet we are told that it is necesary to provide this money to create labour in Eastern Canada, we asked for the extension of branch lines It seems to me that these two statements are not consistent. I therefore urge hon. members not to take this plunge, and to vote down this Bill.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read the second time I wish again to protest energetically but respectfully, and, I trust, strongly, against the adoption of a measure which is vicious in principle and which will be found to be absolutely unwise in practice. When I look at the members of this Government facing us to-night I am reminded of the saying of the Latin poet that "whom the gods destroy they first, make mad," because this is one of the maddest proposals that was ever placed before the Canadian people.
My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) inferred that the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) was going against the best views of the people of Montreal. I can tell the minister that with the exception of those who axe particularly interested in the passage of this measure-and I have some knowledge of the business community in Montreal-the people in that city are utterly opposed to the placing upon this country of indirect liabilities running into tens of millions for the sake of keeping a certain industry going. I do not believe that these yards, if they are properly managed and soundly financed, will have to close down if they do not get this Government assistance. I say that we can lay down no more unsound principle in the administration of the affairs of this country than that any large interest that is in financial difficulties may come to the Government and he assisted. I am appalled, Mr. Speaker, at the functions which this Government are assuming. They are assuming to run the railroads of the country; they axe assuming to run a substantial part of the shipping of the country, and now they are assuming to go into the business of lending money on bottomry and respondentia.
The statement has been made by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) that it would be absurd for the Government to pledge its credit for a farmer who wanted to put up a barn, but it is quite proper, he evidently thinks, for the Government to pledge its credit for the purchase of

ships. Well, I think both are absurd; I think that the farmer should stand on his own feet and that the ship should float on her own bottom. But if you ask me, as a man who is accustomed to advise people in their business dealings, which is the safer, to lend a farmer money on his bam or to lend a shipowner money on his ship, I say that I prefer the investment that is fixed; I prefer to lend money on something that you can see any time you want to look at it rather than on a ship that sails the high seas and is subject to all the vicissitudes and risks of navigation. Let me in a few words show what sort of security you are getting. There will be no personal liability in those who are entering into this transaction; the purchasers of these ships will be limited liability companies. The probabilities are that in the next five years -and the notes which are to be given in connection' with this proposal are to run over almost five years-the cost of building ships will be reduced by half. The cost of building ships before the war was about one-quarter of what it is now, so that when conditions come back to normal I think it is fair to say that the cost of building a ship will be not more than one-half of what it is to-day. What does that mean? Under this plan the purchaser is going to pay only twenty-five per cent down, A mortgage of fifty per cent is to be given to the Canadian Government and a mortgage of twenty-five per cent to the shipbuilder. After five years the equity of the owner will have entirely disappeared. -Every bit of the ship which the owner is operating will be mortgaged, and if the earnings are only sufficient to pay the interest on the mortgage the owner will be working the ship for nothing and will not have that interest in the ship which an owner with an equity possesses in his property. This is the security which we are told is excellent security upon which to extend the credit of Canada. If the equity of the owner of the ship disappears, it will behoove the mortgage creditor, even to a greater extent than it otherwise would, to watch that ship, to see that it is insured, to see that it is properly managed. I say that this Government are assuming responsibilities which are not the function of the Government. I appeal to them even at this late date not to force through this legislation. Of course, they have the majority to do it if they desire to do it.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-conditions under which assistance may be given.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Before this
clause is discussed by hon. gentlemen, following the debate, I think that perhaps we should have a preamble inserted which would make entirely clear what we are doing.- Perhaps this is necessary in view of the suggestions that have been made in opposition to the Bill, and perhaps this preamble will make the situation clear to hon. gentlemen:
Whereas large numbers of -men are employed in the shipbuilding industry in Canada; whereas at the present time there is no demand for the construction of ships by Canadian purchasers and the Government of Canada has ceased placing further orders; whereas inhabitants of European countries are desirous of placing orders for ships in Canadian yards but owing to the present rates of exchange and the depreciated value of foreign currencies, they are unable to finance such orders and whereas it is advisable to assist in financing the construction of ships in existing Canadian shipyards.


Georges Henri Boivin: I cannot, without the unanimous consent of the committee, put a motion that -this preamble be now inserted in the Bill. The clause will have to be adopted first, then the preamble may be considered.


William Stevens Fielding: That is satisfactory.


Mr. BUREAU:: Unanimous consent is
given.


Georges Henri Boivin: Consideration of the
proposed preamble is postponed. Shall clause one carry?


William Stevens Fielding: I notice in the earlier
discussion the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) said that this project would give employment to Canadian -shipyards for two -and a half years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We hope so.


William Stevens Fielding: In no critical, adverse spirit, but for the purpose of inquiry, I should like to konw wha-t my hon. friend thinks is going to happen after the expiry of two and a half years-, which is a very short period in the life of -a nation or in dustry. The hon. -member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) made the remark that he was afraid that if we assisted these shipyards to-day, we would have to continue -assisting them. In times past, I -have met with conditions- similar to this, -and I have been disposed to -assist enterprises when I felt that by giving them tern-

porary assistance they would be placed on their feet. What is to be the fate of these shipyards after the two and a half years are over?-because from all the representations made by my bon. friends opposite, they apparently feel this assistance is absolutely necessary to keep the shipyards going. Is the minister in a position to give an assurance that after the two and a half years are over, the shipyards will be in such a firmly established position that they will be able to do business, or are we going to [DOT]be asked to renew these notes by passing another Bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a
feature to which I have been giving some attention. This is not a question, hon. gentlemen will see, of the position of shipyards. That has nothing to do with the present emergency, and the question does not involve them directly one way or another. They are pretty well financed, so far as I know; they are well equipped, and their staffs .and supplies are all that one would hope for. The difficulty is not a shipbuilding difficulty; it is entirely a difficulty which grows out of the present exchange situation, and we 'hope those exchange difficulties are but temporary. This legislation is for the purpose not of assisting any industry as an industry directly, but of enabling business to be carried on in a very important native industry from the only source from which it is -possible to get business. There is nothing novel in this; our good friends to the South are not backward in seeing that they can get orders; in the United States they have a very heavy shipbuilding programme which is coming to an end; but under the Jones' Act they have provided for a. revolving credit of $25,000,000 which, as I understand .the matter, is not only open for the 50 per .cent which we .are proposing here, but a general, open, revolving credit for the purpose of enabling shipbuilding to be carried on, .in view, of course, entirely of the present abnormal state of exchange. Therefore, we are not doing this to get orders for any shipping concern in the ordinary .sense at all, and we do not think that our responsibility in connection with the shipbuilding industry goes to any greater extent than what we are now providing for, namely, to meet wha't we hope is an entirely temporary exchange situation,


William Stevens Fielding: I think I was correct when I stated that either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries argued that this Bill was necessary

to give employment to 20,000 o-r 25,000 .people. He certainly impressed that upon the House as a strong reason for passing the Bill, and it is a reason which has some weight. I aan not now addressing myself to a general criticism of the Bill, but I want to Ibok ahead to see what is going to happen.. We are going to endorse a note, and we have .a right to ask ourselves the question-What will be the condition of the. shipyards which are getting the orders when the two and a half years expire? If the shipyards are then going to be so firmly established that they can then get orders without any governmental assistance, that is a fair position to take.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We think that is the position to-day. My information is, that although we pay a considerably higher rate of wages in Canadian shipyards than is paid in British shipyards, in view of the much higher cost -of coal and steefl at the present time in the Mother Country, boats are being contracted for just as cheaply in Canada a-s in Great Britain. Therefore, as regards the industry, it is in a position to carry on. A shipbuilder in Great Britain is where the money is; he is where the debased coinage is to be found; his own coinage is at a considerably greater discount than ours, and he is not subject to the same disability as the Canadian shipbuilder is on the ground of exchange. Further, from the information which has been given to me and which I believe to be correct, the general price of shipbuilding in Canada is cheaper than the price in the United States.
M.r, EULER: It may not be in order here; but if it is, a.s the minister states, that the purpose of the loan is not to assist shipbuilding, I would suggest that the title of the Bill be changed so as to read that this is to assist shipbuilders and exchange.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: 
John Howard Sinclair: I have no doubt that has occurred to my hon. friend before, and that is why this latter clause has been embodied in the Bill providing that:
-if the vessel Is being- built for an alien, and the provisions of this Act with respect to mortgaging the vessel cannot conveniently be complied with, such security for the amount of the said promissory notes endorsed by the Minister of Finance shall he furnished by the purchaser as may he approved by the Governor in Council.
That really seems to be the clause under which this scheme is to work, because it is admitted by the minister that you cannot get a legal mortgage if the alien insists on being the owner. Then we come down to this clause which enables the Government to make some other financial arrangement which will -satisfy the Governor in Council that there is sufficient -security for endorsing the paper, so that he may dispense
with the idea of getting a legal mortgage for half the value of the ship.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, on the other hand, we may think it absolutely necessary to have the mortgage. There is only one person who can say "must" in the whole of this transaction, and that is the Government, and we must say we must have a mortgage unless we are amply protected.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There will be no difficulty whatever in getting a mortgage on the ship. That- has been already looked into. Certain legal things will have to be done, but I can assure my hon. friend that we will have no difficulty in getting a mortgage on these ships.'
Mr. iMcKiEINZI'E: As the Department of Justice seem-s to be at sea in this matter, perhaps the Minister of Marine, as the encyclopedia of all knowledge, would explain in a few words this new principle of law by which an alien can own a ship in this country and give a mortgage on it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If a ship was built in the province of Quebec, for instance, a company could be organized under the laws of that province, and that would enable the Government to take a mortgage on the ship. That is one way there are others.
Mr. MoMASTER: Let us suppose that in one of the shipyards there is a boat in course of construction, and that certain sums have been paid by the purchaser who* is having this boat built for him, and that a mortgage has been given by the builder to the purchaser to secure the purchaser against the sums of money which he has paid on account. How would that be worked out if the Government assists in the completion of the boat?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The prior mortgage would have to be discharged before the Government would make any advance.


John Howard Sinclair: If a
builder failed to pay his men, the lien laws of the' province would also apply. That obligation would have to be discharged before title could be got.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection with the lien, laws the hon. gentleman will observe that first of all we have our 25 per cent cash.
Mr. M-cKENZIE: There is only ten pec cent cash.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to differ. When we say " payment " we think that is cash.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It mentions cash in only one place.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the last time cash is mentioned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -and, If such cash payment Is less than twenty per centum of such price, the payment to the shipbuilder of a further sum which with the said cash payment will amount to not less than 20 per centum of such price.
I think that means cash.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It does not say so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Giving a note is not payment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know my hon. friend is a lawyer, hut so am I, and I know that a note is payment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never thought a note was paid until it was paid. It may be taken as a substitution or not. It entirely depends.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You could not sue for the debt while the note was running.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It entirely depends on whether it was taken as a substitution or not. However, I have not the slightest objection to repeating the word " cash " three times. Over and above that there is the twenty-five per cent which is to be arranged as between the puchaseT and the builder.


John Howard Sinclair: Why would not the minister say in plain language that twenty-five per cent must be paid by the purchaser before any money will be advanced by the Government? It is not clear to me when the Government begins to make the advances. Is it as soon as the ten per cent is paid?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no.


John Howard Sinclair: I ununderstand then that the Government will not make any advance until the twenty-five per cent is paid. Why not put that in plain

language? It would be easy to construct a sentence to provide that on the payment of twenty-five per cent by the purchaser and on the builder arranging for payment of another twenty-five per cent then the Government will make the advance. I notice that it is not intended that the second twenty-five per cent will be cash because it says that the price is 'arranged between the purchaser and the builder. That evidently contemplates something elste besides dash. I understand from my hon.
! friend that that first twenty-five per cent is cash put in by the purchaser, and I should like (the minister to put that in the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest in all friendliness to the minister although I have no affection for the Bill,, that he should let the matter stand and draft the form of agreement which he proposes to enter into with these parties and submit it to the House so that we might see exactly what we are going to do. Surely this business is big enough to demand that the minister should disclose the nature of the contract and the terms that it will contain. I am sure that it is little enough to ask that the minister, before he urges us to pass the Bill, should attach to it as a schedule the form of agreement, as is done in all such cases. We would then know exactly what requirements would have to be complied with before the money of the people was advanced in this wildcat scheme.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough)-:	If the
minister really means what he has ' said, that the twenty-five per cent must be put up by the purchaser before any money is advanced by the Government, I think there are .some lines that might be struck out of the clause. I would suggest that all the words after the word "into" in the eleventh line be struck out down to the end of the fifteenth line, and that in place of "ten per centum'" in the ninth 'line there should be "twenty-five per centum", so that the clause would read:
In any case where a person (hereinafter called the "purchaser") has entered Into a contract with a shipbuilder for the building in Canada of a vessel of not less than three thousand tons, and such contract is approved by the Ministers of Finance and Marine and Fisheries, and a sum not less than twenty-five per centum of the price of such vessel is paid by the purchaser to the shipbuilder in cash at the time the contract is entered into, and the payment of a further sum not later than nine months after of twenty-five per centum of the price is arranged between the purchaser and the shipbuilder, secured to the satisfaction of the Minister of Finance, the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance to

endorse on behalf of His Majesty promissory notes drawn by the purchaser in favour of the shipbuilder for fifty per cent of the price of such vessel.
If the clause were reconstructed in that way it would mean what the minister says it means, that the purchaser has to put up twenty-five per cent and the shipbuilder and purchaser must arrange for another twenty-five per cent before the Government will advance the other fifty per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that there is a limitation in the last clause. The notes that may be endorsed on behalf of His Majesty shall not exceed $20,000,000; and the following clause will meet the hon. gentleman's point:
And no note shall be endorsed until after twenty-five per centum of the contract price has been paid.	.
Mr. MeMASTER: In cash? [DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, that
covers the point raised by the hon. member.


John Howard Sinclair: That will not change the .meaning of the first section which also requires an arrangement to be made for the other twenty-five per cent?-


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Mr. GRIESBACH:: The purpose is to
get ships that will engage in foreign trade. Any yard capable of building a 3,000-ton ship will participate, but the purpose of the legislation ought to be to increase the number of foreign trading ships.


William Duff: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) evidently does not realize that ships #f less than 3,000 tons engage in foreign trade. We have the very best class of ships and seamen on the Nova Scotia coast. Those men, during the whole period of the (war, when my hon. and gallant friend was nobly doing his duty in France, were just as nobly doing their duty on the high seas, facing the submarines in the Mediterranean, in the North Sea and in the English Channel. The ships which these men manned were not 3,000-ton ships, nor were they steel ships. They were wooden ships built by Nova Scotia and Nerw Brunswick shipwrights and of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick timber; and although, like the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) I am absolutely opposed to the principle of the Bill, nevertheless as the Scotch mother said that there were no step-bairns in her family, I see no reason why there should be any political step-bairns in Canada. I think therefore that every shipbuilder in the country should be treated alike^ If it is a good policy to loan money to foreign countries to build ships for foreign trade is it not wiser policy for the Government to say to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) and the hon. member for Diigby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson):	"You have shipyards in your counties and they are either about to close or have closed already because you have filled all the orders you were able to obtain. Let your shipwrights go and fell theiT timber in the woods, use that timber for the purpose of building ships and we will finance them and endorse their customers notes. That ship will not go out of the country, it will not be sold to Newfoundland, or to France or to any other country but it will be used in Canada. Take the money of Canada and use it to help to build up the shipbuilding industry and trade of Canada. A few days ago when the Minister of the Interior was considering his Estimates for the administration of the Land Settlement Act I asked him; "Why
41 GO

not give the fisherman-soldier the same privileges as you give under the Land Settlement Act to the man who goes on a farm?" He said the Minister of Marine would take that matter up with him. If this is a good proposition, would it not be a 'better one for the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Finance to say to the fishermen soldiers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick: "We will help you to build ships by endorsing notes for you so that not only will the ships be built but you will be able to go out on the high seas and catch codfish, hake, haddock, or mackerel, help to feed the people of Canada and the people of foreign lands, make money for this country and increase production." If this policy must be adopted by the Government there is not a member of this House who in my opinion can consistently vote for this clause whioh says that no ship of less than 3,000 tons can be considered as entitled to participate in the benefits of this arrangement.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The object of this Bill is to enable Canadian shipbuilders to place orders that are offered for steel ships. The foreign buyers do not want a steel ship of less tonnage than our lake size of vessels are. Three thousand tons is the smallest. The foreign buyer does not want anything but a steel ship or anything less than 3,000 tons.


William Duff: The Minister'has not answered what I said a moment ago. What I said is that if we are going to help shipbuilders to build ships of not less than 3,000 tons for foreign countries, what will we do for our own people? If members are going to support the Government in the policy of advancing money or endorsing notes for foreign buyers, it would be the better policy to help the shipbuilding and fishing industry of Canada on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. If it is a good policy
12 m. for the Government to endorse notes to help foreign buyers to buy ships it is better business for us to endorse notes to help shipbuilders to build wooden ships to prosecute the fishing and trading industries of this country. I think this Bill should be altered so that a shipbuilder who can give satisfactory evidence of his ability to make a contract to build a vessel of 1,000 or 10,000 tons may receive the same encouragement as that which it is proposed to extend to the foreign buyer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the Minister accept that suggestion?

THE CHAIRMAN:	Sir Henry Drayton
moves to amend clause one by adding at the end thereof the following words:
-"and no notes shall be endorsed as aforesaid until twenty-five per centum of the contract price shall have been paid in cash."


William Stevens Fielding: Twenty-five per cent
is to be paid and the other 25 per. cent is to be arranged? Are we going to endorse the notes when only 25 per cent is paid?
(Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	As a matter
of fact the whele thing stands as it is in the first section. 1 have only put that in to make it clearer to hon. gentlemen. The whele matter will be arranged before we endorse anything. Before we start out we will see that the Government is safe, that the whole matter is arranged, that such an arrangement shall be made between the buyer and the shipbuilder as will ensure that that 25 per cent and the lien are entirely out of the way. Our purpose is to see that 25 per cent cash is paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We were told that we were going to have the security of the buyer's note. Will the Minister give us the name of some specific buyer he has in mind so that we may judge of the value of his note?	*


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no specific buyer in my mind, i
Mr. MARCIL. (Bonaventure): Are there any specific countries in mind? Are they all European countries and are they all on the same footing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The business
we expect to get is from France. Some may come from Spain.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Are all
European countries on the same footing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
immediate prospect of doing anything except with France and Spain; at least I do not know of any. Proposals have only been received from France and Spain that I have any knowledge of.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Minister is not
playing with us, and i.f he is thinking of language that means anything at all, it is quite open to him to say that he will not endorse notes and at the same time advance the whole of the money. I think he should say that he will not endorse notes or advance cash until certain eventualities take place.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Duff: I move, seconded by Mr. Sinclair (Guvsborough) :
That the clause be amended by inserting the words ''steel or wooden" after the word "a" in the sixth line: and also that that words "of not less than 3,000 tons" in the sixth and seventh lines be struck from the Bill.
This will .make the clause read:
In any case where a person (hereinafter called the purchaser) has entered into a contract with a shipbuilder for the building in Canada of a steel or wooden vessel.
This would enable the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to endorse these notes for Canadians who desire to build vessels for the Canadian fisheries or the Canadian freighting business, and, as I said a moment ago, every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House should accept this amendment, especially the hon. members whom I mentioned a minute ago and the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney), who is as much interested in the shipping business as I am.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before this amendment is put, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word in support of it. I object to this measure as special legislation, but this amendment will make the legislation fair, because it will put all shipbuilders on an equal footing; and I would draw to the minister's attention that there is a saving clause left in the Bill to the effect that each contract must be approved by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Those two gentlemen will still be arbiters of the fate of those who apply for assistance to their customers to build ships. I do impress upon the Minister of Finance, who as a lawyer must have a sense of justice-	.
(Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -I know of no class in the community with a stronger, and keener - sense of justice than the legal profession, and I db impress upon him that to give an advantage to- companies that may build steel ships, and to withhold that advantage from those who may build wooden ships, is neither fair nor equitable. I trust the amendment will be accepted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know my hon. [DOT] friend (Mr. Duff) is absolutely sincere in his suggestion, but allow me to point out one thing to him: He is now suggesting that we should do something that he and those holding the same views have argued
for two days we should not do, because they have been objecting to helping, any specific industry as such, they have been objecting to bonusing or anything of that kind as such. There is only one reason why this Bill is introduced, It is hot done for the purpose of bonusing any industry, hut for the purpose of endeavouring to help overcome the exchange situation, and that alone. There is no exchange differences between one province and another, or between the inhabitants of one town and another. That is the reason that this amendment cannot be accepted. We would be absolutely departing from the principles of this Bill if we accepted this amendment. Another thing, in connection with the size and class of boats, this is the only boat that these people want.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am just as much opposed to bonusing as ever. I am opposed to bonusing shipbuilding, but I am still more opposed to bonusing a certain shipbuilding industry and not bonusing the other shipbuilding industries. If you accept the principle, you say it is for the sake of overcoming the exchange situation. But a minute ago the Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us that the purpose of this Bill was to keep employed some 25,000 people in the shipbuilding industry who otherwise might be thrown out of work.
Sir HENRA DRAA.TON: Which can only be done by overcoming the exchange situation.	[DOT]


Andrew Ross McMaster: Well, if a French company or an individual want to have a wooden ship built of 1,000 tons in a shipyard in Nova Scotia, I say that on every principle of justice, equity and fairness if you enter upon this policy of endorsing notes-which I think is a very unwise policy-you have no right to refuse to endorse notes for the people who are going to buy wooden ships in Nova Scotia and at the same time endorse notes for the person who is going to buy a larger ship made of steel in the province of Quebec. It is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not even-handed justice as between the two branches of the shipbuilding industry.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is no danger of France or any other country wanting to place orders for wooden ships in Canada.


Charles Marcil: Then there should be no objection to it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: England, France and *the United States- have so much -wooden tonnage that they do not know what to do with it. This legislation is to enable our shipyards to take orders- for -steel oceangoing ships, and I am sorry that -we cannot accept the amendment.
Mr. -DUFF: The Minister of Marine has stated that there is no inquiry from France or any other country for wooden ships. I -thought I made it perfectly clear the other night that not only -was there inquiry, -but we were building wooden ships for France.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: During the war.


William Duff: No, no. The war, thank God, is over. I told the two ministers the other night that in the constituency of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) they are to-day building wooden ships for France, land in my own oounsti-fuency we are building wooden ships for France. W-e have been building those ships without coming to this -Government to endorse the notes of the prospective shipowner in France or of the shipbuilder in Nova Scotia. But let me say that we are building ships for France for which we have made contracts and arranged the finances, in spite of the exchange-and that is the principle argument the Minister of Finance has put up. Well, if the little shipbuilders in Nova Scotia with their small capital and their small credit can arrange with their bankers to build ships for French account, certainly the big shipbuilders engaged in the steel ship industry could also do the same thing.
But what I want to argue is that whilst we have been able to finance those ships for France which we are now building or which have been delivered, a different situation may arise. Let us suppose that this iniquitous legislation goes through. A month from now a gentleman from France comes to our Nova 'Scotia shipbuilders and he says, " I am satisfied with the ships which you have delivered to me during the last six months, they are admirably suited for our business, and I am willing to place 'orders with you for ten more ships of the same size." The shipbuilder will say, " We are glad to get the business. What terms are you prepared to make with us?" " Well," the French gentleman will reply, " here is an Act passed at the instance of your Minister of Marine, who is a business man, and your Minister of Finance, who is said to be a financial man. Apparently they are willing to endorse notes for certain gentlemen in France to enable them to pur-

chase vessels costing $1,000,000; certainly you should be willing to.give us the same privilege and get your Government to endorse our notes." But, Mr. Chairman, the shipbuilders can only tell him, " The Government is not willing to endorse the notes for the building of small ships." The French gentleman may well exclaim, " That is rather strange. If the Government of Canada is willing to help build up the interests of men in this country who are millionaires, surely they should be willing to help the small shipbuilders in Nova Scotia," If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Finance consider this good business, I do not. But, as I said before, if they do -consider it good business to advance money for building of 3,000 tons or over, they certainly should be willing to grant -the same privi-' lege to French customers who warfE wooden ships of 300, 400 or 500 tons. For the last fifty years or more we in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have done an excellent business- with our neighbour, the Dominion of Newfoundland, in the selling of ships. Every year Newfoundland merchants -come tto Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and buy ten, fifteen or twenty ships. They either buy ships- that have been built and sailed for one or two years, or they place contracts in the different .yards for new ships. The shipbuilding business- in the countries- of Shelburne and Queen's- has practically been kept going during the -last two or three years by the Newfoundland and Lunenburg buyers. Now, Sir, what is the position which faces1 us to-day? At present it is impossible for the shipyards in Shelburne, Queen's and Lunenburg to get orders form Newfoundland merchants owing to a financial depression which prevails in Newfoundland. If, as the Minister of Marine says, one of the purposes of this Bill is to keeip employed 23,500 steel shipwrights and 25,000 men connected with the steel shipbuilding business, is it not just as necessary to keep the wooden shipwrights busy, as well as the men who cut timber, make sails and do the rigging of wooden ships in -my part of the country? If we are going to endorse the notes of customers in France in connection with the -purchase of steel ships of 3,000 tons or more, we should endorse the notes of Newfoundland customers who want to buy Nova -Scotia-built ships.


Mr. BUTTS:: Did my hon. friend ever hear tell of a wooden ship of 3,000 tons?


William Duff: Yes, I did. I know they have been built, and I am sure that my friends

from the Pacific coast would answer that question in the same way. But w.e are not talking of wooden ships of 3,000 tons. I am referring to vessels which are required either for French account or for Newfoundland account. No bon. member is more familiar with the Newfoundland business than my hon. friend (Mr. Butts), because part of the trade of his town and his county is kept up by Newfoundland business men who go there to purchase coal. But if it is good business to endorse the notes of French shipbuilders who require Canadian ships, would it not be even better business, would it not be even better business, would it not be fairer, for the Government to help the business men of the sister Dominion of Newfoundland to purchase ships in Canada built of native Nova Scotia wood and by Canadian shipwrights? It seems to me, Sir, that the argument is unanswerable and that every hon. member should support the amendment which I have proposed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member (Mr. Duff) took a somewhat different position during the earlier part of the evening. But before I enter into that, I may remark that the hon. member seems to have a chip on his shoulder to-night.


William Duff: I always have one on each shoulder.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Very well put; and the hon. member can take both sides of a question equally well.


William Duff: Oh, no; my hton. friend does that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Replying to my question whether or not he would approve of this Bill if its terms were extended to cover wooden ships, my hon. friend said that he was entirely opposed to the Bill because the business men of Nova Scotia were too independent to accept from this Government any assistance under such a proposal.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member stated that in such unequivocal terms that there was no room for doubt as to what he meant. To my surprise, the hon. member has now taken that back.


William Duff: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: He is now pleading for what he refused to accept in the earlier part of the evening,-that is, that the builders of wooden ships in Nova Scotia be brought under the terms of this Bill for 265
certain classes of ships. That is what the hon. gentleman repudiated; that is what he refused on their behalf to accept. I do not pretend to have any expert knowledge of shipbuilding, but my own idea was that if, in these days of steel and concrete and construction of more durable materials, wooden ships could be built under the provisions of this Bill which would carry out the purpose that the Bill has in view, it would be fair, from the broad national viewpoint, to give the Nova Scotia shipbuilders an opportunity of securing this assistance. But my hon. friend seeks to emasculate the Bill in all its essential principles. Leaving entirely out of consideration the fact stated by the minister, that no country wants wooden ships of the larger tonnage. I submit that when the hon. gentleman moves to strike out the 3,700 and 3,000 ton clause of the Bill he amasou-lates it, renders it abortive and absolutely useless. He speaks of having the shipyards of Nova Scotia, in this steel age, build wooden ships of 400, 500, 600, 700 and 1,000 tons. But that is not within the scope or purview of this measure. The vessels aimed at are seaworthy, well-constructed vessels, such as can be built in fifteen or seventeen yards throughout the country. In these yards skilled workmen are ready to undertake the work and to fill orders which are expected from France and Spain, two nations which to-day need the tonnage and are prepared to make the necessary arrangements. The hon. gentleman disclaimed any desire on the part of Nova Scotia to obtain any assistance of this kind, even in respect bo wooden ships; now he comes forward with a proposal to build small fishing smacks, canoes, rafts, motor boats-anything at all. Such a policy has no national scope; I believe the hon. member was right when he said that the people of Nova Scotia would not ask for assistance in the carrying out of anv such programme of small boat building. With .regard to the amendment my hon. friend suggests, I was more or less inclined, subject to being shown, to the view that if the building of large wooden ships of, say 3,000 tons, could be profitably undertaken and if such 'shipbuilding would, in the opinion of experts, be reasonable in the present age, these wooden shipbuilders might well be encouraged and permitted, in respect of the large boats, to partake of the provisions of this Bill. I am a land man; I do not know; I am rather shaken in my opinion about that after hearing what the Minister of Finance has said as regards building


William Duff: I am sure the committee
has listened with a great deal of interest to the lecture the hon. member for France, or I should say, Perth North (Mr. Morphy) has just given me and) the House. I do not see that I was inconsistent any time in my previous remarks. I stated as strongly as it was possible to state it, that I was absolutely opposed' to the principle of this Bill, and/ it was on the principle of the Bill that I said, in /answer to my hon. friend, that I did not think the builders of wooden ships in Nova Scotia would require this assistance from the Government. But it is impossible for me to look into the future, and I do not think that I, or any other hon. member representing a constituency in

which wooden ships are built, would be doing our duty if we did not endeavour to have inserted in the Bill a clause to cover wooden ships as well as" steel ships. Nova Scotia shipbuilders .are independent men, and I am very doubtful if they would come to this Government to endorse their notes unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. But it might be possible that conditions might arise whereby, if this Bill; goes through and they see that this Government is endorsing notes for French account, they would feel that, as good Canadian citizens, they were entitled to the same treatment as foreign gentlemen from France or any other country. But to show the hon. gentleman the way we do business in Nova Scot/ia, would it surprise him if I told him that at the present time I know of certain gentlemen in Nova Scotia who have soldi ships to other countries and who have accepted as payment for those ships 25 per cent in cash and1 notes at three, six and nine months for the balance of the purchase price, and they did not come-I was almost going to say, "we did not come"-to the Government to ask them to endorse notes. That shows the independence of Nova Scotians; and as long as the credit of Nova Scotia shipbuilders is good .at the hanks and! they do not reach the limit of their credit, they would rather .accept notes from foreign or other buyers) of ships than come to this Government to 'have their notes endorsed. What. I fear is/ this, that if wooden shipbuilders are not placed in the same position as steel shipbuilders are being placed in by this legislation, people in France who desire to build wooden ships will come out here and say to the iwooden shipbuilders of Nova Scotia and: New Brunswick: "We expect you and your Government to treat us in exactly the same way as you are treating people from France who want steel ships built." In the light of the lecture which my hon. friend gave me a few minutes ago, II may say that he has not advanced any argument why the Government should not accept my amendment. There is no greater reason why the Government should endorse notes for people who want vessels of not less than '3,000 tons than they should endorse notes of people who want vessels of 10,000 tons. The Bill is, I hope, not. drawn to help certain people out. If this policy is a good one, it should cover every shipyard in Canada. If this Bill is drawn to help certain people out, then this committee should not adopt the principle of the Bill or vote for this clause. 'Consequently, I appeal to hon. members to accept my amendment which

does not prevent the Minister ol Marine and (Fisheries and the Minister of Finance from saying to .a shipbuilder in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, if he comes with a proposition of a ship of 100 tons or 200 tons or 500 tons: "We cannot endorse your notes under this, clause." Even if the clause is amended as I suggest, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has power to refuse the notes of Nova Scotia builders of wooden ships. Therefore, the .amendment I have moved will do no harm and will satisfy the builders of wooden ships, not only on the Atlantic coast, 'but on the 'Pacific coast.


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to be assumed in the discussion that in the Maritime provinces., only vessels of a small class can be built. I must (point out that in Liverpool within my constituency, there was. built to assist in the war .a large ship for foreign service. I do not remember her tonnage, but tf think I am right in saying .that she was a vessel of about 2,500 tons, built in first class style, turned, out in a manner which gave entire satisfaction and which reflected great credit on the builder and on the community which turned out such a fine type of ship.


Mr. PARENT:: Under this legislation will it be possible for a Canadian citizen to have a ship built in Canadian yards?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Provided that it
comes within the terms of this Bill.


Georges Parent: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: The object of
the Bill is not to .assist Canadians to buy ships. There is no mystery about this thing. There is no demand at the present time by Canadians for 'boats, and no orders for the yards from Canadian firms. There .are orders from Overseas, but the yards cannot do anything with them until the exchange is regulated. The object here is ito meet the difficulty caused by the exchange. There is nothing in the Bill tieing down the purchaser to any one country. .
Amendment negatived; yeas 18, nays 42.


William Duff: I would like to submit
another amendment. The minister is not quite sure on this question of the mortgage.
265J
I am convinced that a mortgage cannot be .properly drawn that would fully guarantee our money. In my opinion the better way would be for the Canadian Government to keep the vessel registered in the name of ithe King until such time as these notes are paid. That would avoid all trouble, and would be far more satisfactory than taking a mortgage or any other class of security. If the vessel is registered on the Canadian register in the name of His Majesty the King, the whole title will he vested in the name of the Canadian people. I therefore move to strike out on page 2 of the Bill affl the words in lines 4, 5 and 6, all the words in lines 7 up to and including the word "and", all the words in line 9 after the word "amount", all the words in line 10 except "is", and all the words i.n lines. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. It would then read as follows:
The said vessel shall be registered in Canada, and the register shall not be transferred until the amount advanced is fully satisfied and paid; the vessel shall he insured and kept in favour of His Majesty for such amount and against such risks and in such Insurance Companies as the Minister of Finance may determine.	, .
I think that would be far more satisfactory to the Government and to everybody else concerned in these transactions. The vessel would remain the property of the Canadian Government until the notes endorsed by [DOT]the Government were paid. I trust the (amendment will be agreed to, as I think it would be in the best interests of the country.
Amendment negatived, o.n division.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the minister clear as to the point I. suggested the other evening? It is quite clear that the intention i.s that the ships are to be insured, but I am not sure that it is clear who is to pay the insurance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The mortgagee, of course, does not pay the insurance. The mortgagor, who is the purchaser, must pay all the insurance and all the charges. We are not providing for any expenses in connection with this at all.


William Stevens Fielding: It may be contended by somebody that the Government should keep these vessels insured.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
room .for contention, because the whole of this Bill is purely permissive. No one can make any .claim. The boats must be insured, and the mortgagor must insure them.

We shall have the usual covenants in the mortgage covering the insurance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If this Bill passes, as I presume it will, is it merely a standing offer or advertisement to the world, or are there any specific cases, where applications have been made to any of the shipyards in Canada, of which I understand there are seventeen;-that is the number that has been paraded all the time. Has any application been made to any one of these seventeen yards? Are there any contracts made with any one of these yards? If so, with which ones, and who has made the contract?
Mr. BAL'lLANTYNE:	Several Canadian
shipyards have sent representatives over to France during the last five or six months. I cannot specifically name the yards at the moment, but they have sent over representatives to France, but they were not able to finance the orders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is evidently no contract made with anybody, and no specific application from anybody.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: France has offered *to several of our big shipbuilders orders for as much as 500,000 tons. France has placed a few small orders with some of the shipyard representatives, but the shipbuilders were not able to finance the big orders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are told that the great obstacle is the exchange. Will the Minister of Finance please tell the committee where he proposes to get the money to help these people? I have been informed that the intention is to get this money from the United States. Is it a fact that we are going to borrow money from the United States? Shall we not be up against the exchange there? I understand it is now about 15 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As money in the United States is at a premium, the ship owners would gain, instead of being penalized by getting money in the States ajjd bringing it here. As to where these notes will be discounted, that will have to be determined when the individual transactions come up, having regard to the state of the money market at that time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Am I to understand that no person has asked for the application of this legislation to any ispecific case? Has no firm in France or elsewhere made application to any shipyard in Canada to build a ship for them? Has no application

been made directly to this Government? Is there no correspondence with this Government from any Government in Europe, or from any responsible business firm in Europe, asking for the carrying out of the terms of this legislation? As I understand-it,, it is entirely speculative, a general advertisement to the world at large to come to this fountainhead and be blessed by this Government with >
the money which they have not got for themselves.


John Howard Sinclair: Most of the proposals made by this side have been rejected, but I have one which I think will be accepted by the Minister of Finance. The minister is familiar with the clause in the Audit Act that requires all accounts and expenditures to be placed before Parliament within so many days after Parliament assembles. I move that we add to this Bill as section 2 the following:
An account in detail of the endorsements made or liabilities incurred under the provisions of this Act shall be laid before Parliament within fifteen days if Parliament is then sitting, .and if not sitting then within the first fifteen days of the session next ensuing.
1 have copied this from the Audit Act and I do not think that there can be any objection to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no objection whatever to the clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before this amendment can be put to the committee I must point out that it constitutes a new clause, and the committee must therefore dispose of the clause at present under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before it carries I have a suggestion which I hope the minister will accept. These notes that are to be endorsed by the Government .are to extend over a period of almost five years. The total amount of the notes that can be issued is 120,000,000. It is to be hoped that some of these notes will be repaid long before the five-year period is up, and the amendment I propose is as follows:
At no time shall the endorsement given by His Majesty exceed the sum of $10,000,000.
*Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: In my opinion the
nays have it and I declare the amendment lost.


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose that these
notes will not really be held by the Gov-

ernment. The Government will make conditions as to how and where and when they will be discounted, but they will he held by the builders, who will have to do the, discounting subject to review by the minister. I take it for granted that these notes are not to toe treated as Government notes discounted toy the Government but will be private notes bearing their endorsement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Probably we
may find it better to do the discounting ourselves, but if we do we .shall only do it as acting for them.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister inform the committee what rate of interest the notes will bear?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not
know what the interest will be.


William Duff: Will the minister tell the
committee in whose names the vessels will be registered, and what amount of insurance the Government will hold on the ships?	:


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot say
in whose names they will be registered; I do not know the names of the people with whom we may do business. So far as the insurance is concerned, we shall have to have insurance to cover the whole of our insurable risk.


William Duff: The minister says that he does not know the people in whose names the ships will be registered. I take it that if these vessels are to be sold to French customers they will be registered in France; but the Minister of Marine says they will be registered in Canada. Now you cannot register a Canadian vessel in the name of a citizen of France or any other foreign country.
Mr. BALLANTYN1E:	We know that.


William Duff: The Minister of Marine
knows it but the Minister of Finance does not, because the answer he has just given me implies that vessels may be registered in the name of the purchaser. The Minister of Finance says that vessels may be registered in France while the Minister of Marine says they will be registered in Canada. Which of the two hon. gentlemen is right?* In whose name will the ships be registered? Will they remain on Canadian registry or will they be registered in France?
Some hon. MEMBERS r Carried.


William Duff: I think I am entitled to an answer. I do not think that the minister is
able to give me an answer. I should like to know what percentage of insurance will he carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That question
has been answered.
Section 1 agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) moves to add as clause 2 the following:
An .account in detail of the endorsements made on liabilities incurred under the provisions of this Act shall be laid before Parliament within fifteen days if Parliament is then sitting, and if not sitting then within the first fifteen days of the session next ensuing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I move to add as a preamble the following:
Whereas large numbers of men are employed in the shipbuilding industry in Canada; Whereas at the present time there is no demand for the construction of ships by Canadian purchasers and the Government of Canada has ceased placing further orders; whereas inhabitants of European countries are desirous of placing orders for ships in Canadian yards but owing to the present rates of exchange and the depreciated value of foreign currencies, they are unable to finance such orders and whereas it is advisable to assist in financing the construction of ships in existing Canadian shipyards.


Georges Parent: The only objection I see to the . preamble is the possibility that it may to a certain extent prevent Canadian [DOT]citizens from 'building in Canadian yards. Would the minister have any objection to adding some provision to make it clear that this will not occur?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that is perfectly clear:


William Duff: I have one objection to
offer to the preamble. It says: "Whereas at the present time there is no demand for the construction of ships by Canadian purchasers." Thai* is a broad statement, and it is not correct. There is certainly some demand for the construction of ships by . Canadian purchasers and it is not fair to word the preamble in this manner. You might say "steel ships," but it is not right to say that there is no demand for the construction of ships by Canadian purchasers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: "No sufficient
demand" might meet the case.


Georges Parent: As it is, it is a bad advertisement.


William Duff: I would move to add the
word "sufficient" after the word "no" and before the word "demand."
41G8


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the minister will tell the committee, what effect if any this merger hae had upon the shipbuilding industry in Canada. Have any of the shipbuilding concerns entered that merger and, if so, which of them? Is it true that the Halifax shipbuilding plant has entered the merger?
Mr. B A ELAN TYNE,: I have no intimate knowledge of the British Empire Steel Company. 'I only know from the press reports wherein they state that none of these shipyards is included in the merger.


William Daum Euler: What is the object of the preamble? It does not touch the essential facts and it is anything but a good advertisement. The object of the Bill would be served just as well if the preamble were omitted altogether.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The preamble is necessitated very largely by the speeches of hon. members who have opposed the Bill. They have pointed out that they were greatly alarmed by the precedent created, that there was no reason why it should not apply to furniture factories and all kinds of other things. The preamble shows why it does not apply. It shows that something is necessary to be done for one reason and that is foT the purpose of correcting exchange.
(Mr. PARENT: I am sorry that this preamble is presented at this late hour. Generally, when a Bill is introduced, the preamble is the first thing that is put into it. We are not responsible if we have to delay the committee for a few minutes. The delay is due to those who presented the preamble so late. A few minutes ago I asked the minister whether under this law a Canadian citizen could build a ship in Canadian yards. I was answered in the affirmative. My contention is that if jjjie law does not apply in that way the preamble will prevent this being done. The whole spirit of the law is presented in the preamble.
This preamble says that the purpose of the Bill is to assist foreigners who want to purchase ships constructed in Canadian yards. It does not say that a Canadian can construct ships in Canadian yards but we have to take the preamble as it is. The law is specially made for' financing foreigners who buy .ships built in Canadian yards but if a Canadian wants to avail himself of the benefit of this law why should he not be allowed to do so as well as the foreigner?
tMr. Duff.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be a novel thing to say that a section free of ambiguity could be in the operative part of the Bill limited by the preamble. Some judges look upon the preamble as of little more use than the Hansard notes which other judges decline to look at altogether. The question is what the section itself eays. Further, while the reason is shown why the action is taken, hon. gentlemen will see that it is not limited in the preamble itself to assisting in financing foreign orders. The attention of Parliament is called to this question as a result of the exchange situation, and it is as a result of the exchange situation that Parliament determines to do something and in doing something it does not limit it in the words contained even in the preamble itself.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: 
William Duff: I do not think that is wise, because it is not an Act respecting the shipbuilding industry. It is an Act for a. specific purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Rt, Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) moved the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That a humble Address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King in the following words :-
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Tour Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the	Commons of Canada,
in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to give your consent to submit a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner following, or to the following effect:-
"An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867.
Be it enacted by the Kii.g's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com-

mons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:-
1. Section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, in hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
"2. Any enactment of the Parliament of Canada otherwise within the legislative authority of the Parliament shall operate and be deemed to have operated extra-territorially according to its intention in the like manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
He said: This resolution has 'been standing on the Order Paper practically throughout the session. I understand there is no objection to it being passed. I have had the opportunity of conferring with the leader of the Opposition and some other leading members on the other side
1 a.m. of the House with regard to it.
The entire purpose and effect of the legislation that we are asking to be enacted is to give an interpretation to the provisions of the British North America Act Which will settle what is now a disputable or unsettled question. There is a jurisprudence and there are judgments which hold, or at all events are interpreted as holding, that there is something restricted in the effect of the legislation of the parliaments of the Dominions as compared with the effect of legislation enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the effect which attaches to legislation enacted by them. The interpretation that we ask for is that it should be enacted. That the legislation of this Parliament within the scope of its attributions-it is not suggested to extend them in any way-shall be deemed to operate extra territorially according to its intention in like manner and to the same effect as if enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We are not seeking to encroach on the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom; The sole purpose we seek to have made clear is that to legislation upon matters within our compass there shall attach,' where Parliament attaches to it, the same extra territorial effect that would attach to the legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Now, that effect goes no further than that such law shall be law in Canada; we do not pretend that it can be enforced in foreign countries. But we wish to make certain that the law imposing obligations upon .he citizens of Canada to be carried out outside the limits of our own country we will be entitled to enforce in our courts whenever our citizens may return within this jurisdiction. That is precisely the power
(that attaches to the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. As I say, it is not at all a settled thing that it does not attach to oux legislation. There are judgments which certainly justify the conclusion that it does; there are other judgments that justify the conclusion that it does not. In the absence of such settlement it would be necessary for us in each particular case to go to the United Kingdom to ask for jurisdiction.
The particular matter that has brought this to our attention is the legislation which we miay be called upon to enact and the regulations which it may be necessary to impose to govern Canadian aerial navigation. Any such legislation would necessarily have to deal with Canadian aerial navigators and the management of Canadian aircraft, and I think it is obvious that if douibt be suggested as to whether we can enforce those laws with regard to the operation of any Canadian aircraft the moment it gets outside the actual limits of Canada, we would be put in a very difficult position. Now, it seemed tc us better to settle the question once for all.
William Stevens Fielding: Would the bon. gentleman give us some concrete cases which would make it clearer to the wayfarer, even though he be a member of Parliament and not a lawyer? I think I have grasped the intention of my hon. friend, but he might give us an illustration of what he desires to .control by this legislation.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Take the particular instance I was mentioning-


William Stevens Fielding: That was very general.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are in process of preparation certain rules of aerial navigation, which it is expected, under conventions and treaties to be made, will govern the aircraft of all the different nations. Under those it will be our obligation to see that our aircraft and those managing it conform to the rules not only while they are actually within our country, but when they get in the air over the ocean or over some other country.


William Stevens Fielding: Up over Great Britain, for example?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. But this won't
exclude the authority of any country in which our men may be. As I pointed out, there is no pretension that our law will prevail in any other country, but if our - citizens comes under the operation of this law he will be bound in addition to conform to such obligations as we may impose

upon him as a Canadian citizen. That is one instance, and many others might be cited. The effect of this would be that if we did enact legislation imposing certain obligations upon our citizens while they were outside of this country, when those citizens returned we would be in a position to enforce those laws within Canada. The only effect will be to remove any doubt as to whether there is a difference between the effect of a Dominion law in that respect and the law of any other country.


William Stevens Fielding: I can readily understand that where a Canadian airman-if you take him as an illustration-goes outside the three-mile limit over the high seas he would be responsible as a -Canadian citizen. But the question to my mind is, if a Canadian airman goes to England and commits some offence against these laws we lay down in England, is he to be punished when he returns to Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: , If he has violated our laws which we have prescribed as a rule of conduct while he is outside of this country then when he returns he will be liable to such consequences as our legislation imposes.


William Stevens Fielding: Even although he has already been punished in England?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In that case I have no doubt that the rule against punishing a man twice for the same offence would apply. But what we have in mind is that if we are going to take responsibility for our -aviators -carrying on in accord with the general rules that may be agreed to by the different nations, we ought to have the power of enforcing the obligations that we impose upon them. It is not easy to define exactly how faT the effect goes of this extra-territorial application of the laws of the country. But all that is asked by this legislation i-s that the effect attaching to the legislation of other countries extraterritorially shall attach to the legislation of this country; it simply puts us in the same position as other countries. My own impression would be that we are in that position, but it is a doubtful question and we would like to have it settled.


William Stevens Fielding: It can hardly be alleged that the House is taken by surprise in connection with this matter, as this motion has been standing on the Order Paper for nearly four -months. But it has been so long on the Order Paper that most members have forgotten it, and those who have not forgotten it have supposed it was

dead. However, I am assured that the matter has been one of conference between the Minister of Justice and some of the legal members on this side, and upon the assurance that it is acceptable to them, I, a poor layman-, do not want to offer any objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: That the said address be engrossed.
Motion -agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move.
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House has passed an Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that he will graciously be pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to . the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1'8'67 in the manner set forth in the said Address hereto attached, and requesting that Their Honours will unite with this House in the said Address by filling up the blank therein with the words "Senate and".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. M-cMaster, with the unanimous consent of the House, Bill No. 201 (Letter D-5 of the Senate), for the relief of Marie Jeanne Yvonne Albertine St. Amour Lallemand, was read the first and second times and referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
On -motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.29 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 25, 1920.